Senator Clinton Slams GTA 1493
Joining the ranks of such luminaries as Jack Thompson and Governor Blagojevich, GamesIndustry.biz has the word that Senator Hillary Clinton has joined right wing advocates in decrying the gaming industry as a paragon of loose morals and corrupting influences. From the article: "Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them...This is a silent epidemic of media desensitisation that teaches kids it's OK to diss people because they are a woman, they're a different colour or they're from a different place." Commentary available at The Australian. Update: 03/30 02:22 GMT by T : Thanks to reader mantle_etching, here is a link to the entire speech as delivered, so you can judge its content for yourself.
STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:3, Insightful)
"Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them," she said in a statement on the issue. "This is a silent epidemic of media desensitisation that teaches kids it's OK to diss people because they are a woman, they're a different colour or they're from a different place."
Hmmm, what about the US Government desensitizing these same children using the same television by killing and torturing real people during wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or announcing that the head of the US Government was getting his cock sucked by a cigar smoking slut who was married to the same woman who is so against immoral behavior being shown to children?
The parents are letting their children play GTA and they are letting them watch the news. It's up to the parents of these children to give them direction in life not Senator Clinton or anyone else.
I'd like someone to sit down the youngsters in our country and try to explain to them how killing or torturing someone in a war that was permitted under false pretenses is morally acceptable but allowing an incapacitated woman to pass away peacefully is not. Or how the President willed a young woman to suck him off and put a cigar in her vagina because he had the power to do so was still allowed to run this "moral" country after he was found guilty of lying?
Let's have our parents teach us the morals they believe not the mixed messages that the US Government is sending.
Please stay out of the personal lives of your constituents. We don't need you tell us how to live our lives to be as "moral" as all of you.
maybe i'm gittin' old... (Score:1, Insightful)
Quick! BAN BOOKS! (Score:5, Insightful)
If your kid has a problem defining fantasy vs reality, video games are the least of his concern...
This wouldn't be quite so hypocritical... (Score:4, Insightful)
Campaign Tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember reading about how wonderful alcohol was, while in Jr. High and Highschools. Never Cry Wolf, by Farley Mowat, painted a lovely picture of something called "wolf juice" which was (IIRC) half whiskey and half beer. This book was required reading for some classes. Should I blame Mr. Mowat for how much I spend on ales, porters and stouts these days? I suggest a few million to conduct a meaningful study. If it's approved, I'll see you all down at the bar, first round is on me.
Young Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Children? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Young Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
At the same time I get my Republican Party back from the New Aged GOP that has started supporting Big Government, Business, and Big Spending.
I think the worrying thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they're making an informed choice to say "Ok Jimmy, you can smoke cops and bang that ho!", they can't complain about it. If they're not making that choice and the kid does it anyway, that's their fault too...
In Other News... (Score:3, Insightful)
What did our children learn from that experience.... Other than women that are with powerful men have to put up with such nonsense.
This one time, at the Whitehouse... (Score:1, Insightful)
I really like the part in GTA where the intern sticks the cigar up her ya-ya. That's HAWT!
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Also I think with SA they have been more consistent with who is racist/sexist &c. You're character isn't overly either, yet the more dislikable people are, as in films for instance.
I bought it, and it had an 18 label on it. Moral of the story - DON'T LET YOUR KIDS PLAY IT IF THEY'RE NOT INTELLIGENT, FREE THINKING INDIVIDUALS. Jesus!
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:1, Insightful)
You seem to be forgetting that there was a period of ten years between the two events...
Underlying Issue (Score:4, Insightful)
"Children are playing..." (Score:1, Insightful)
Am I the only one who sees this as obvious?
Re:maybe i'm gittin' old... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them..."
Wow. Sounds like those children have some really crappy parents. My brother would never let his daughter play a game like Grand Theft Auto.
Perhaps, Senator Clinton, this is what comes of trying to get the "village" to raise a child. There are a lot of jerks in any given community who will happily sell violent soft-core pornography to children at $60 retail.
Re:Slashdot Translator (Score:3, Insightful)
She's NOT right, and her "solution" solves NOTHING.
Kids don't grow up to become prostitute-murdering psychopaths because they played a videogame that "taught them it was cool." Give children a little bit of credit here.
Re:Quick! BAN BOOKS! (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't the solution seem obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary Clinton doesn't want an impressionable 15 year old playing GTA. I'm 22, and want to play whatever the hell I please because I'm an adult that's responsible for his own actions.
I know the ESRB rating system has been around for a while, but nobody enforces it. Nobody is preventing a 15 year old kid from buying a copy of GTA, BMX XXX, or any other game that *probably* isn't all that appropriate for younger kids, even if I played similar games at that age myself and have never physically harmed another human being.
The problem is that enforcing this screws the retail chains that carry these titles (in addition to screwing the under-18 market, but since they can't vote, I doubt Hilly cares anyway).
Re:STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not up to politicians to determine the morality of music, video games, or any other communication. Politicians are always trying to get an angle on something to better their own political gain.
Their constituents shouldn't be admonished for "bad morals" because they have free thought while they strive to cheat, steal, lie, and sneak around to get higher up the political food chain.
Re:maybe i'm gittin' old... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:maybe i'm gittin' old... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Some Perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.
In other words, she was speaking to a room full of really wealthy people when she said this. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with her statement in general.
I just wanted it to be clear that she wasn't saying this to a mixed group of people. She was saying this to a room full of really wealthy people.
Re:Quick! BAN BOOKS! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:1, Insightful)
What ever happened to parents? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quick! BAN BOOKS! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm, what about the US Government desensitizing these same children using the same television by killing and torturing real people during wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or announcing that the head of the US Government was getting his ...
This is just a troll.
The parents are letting their children play GTA and they are letting them watch the news. It's up to the parents of these children to give them direction in life not Senator Clinton or anyone else.
Ah, you finally get it. The Government is neither responsible for causing this phenomenon (as you claim above), nor should it be responsible for putting a stop to it. Let parents to the parenting. Don't ban or blast these games or their makers, educate the parents on the responsibility of parenthood.
Seriously, you must have a license, to drive a car, fish, hunt, act as a business, and so on. No such requirement for being a parent. Not saying that we should license people to be parents, but does it not strike anyone else as odd that a certain level of competency must be demonstrated before you can get in an automobile and drive, but not to have a child.
I'd like someone to sit down the youngsters in our country and try to explain to them how killing or torturing someone in a war that was permitted under false pretenses is morally acceptable but allowing an incapacitated woman to pass away peacefully is not.
This is an even better troll.
Or how the President willed a young woman to ... was still allowed to run this "moral" country after he was found guilty of lying?
Did you write your congressman about it?
Let's have our parents teach us the morals they believe not the mixed messages that the US Government is sending.
This makes sense now.
Too bad you troll for half your post. Otherwise, a couple of insightful points.
Re:STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:3, Insightful)
Alcohol, tobacco, and drugs are proven dangerous substances that cause cancer, death, etc. This has been proven in multiple credible and unbiased studies over many years.
The "effects" of video games has not (and likely will not) be proven by any unbiased research.
If it is and it somehow directly causes death and/or cancer/illness then we can start discussing putting parents away for exposing their children for it.
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah she is.
But fuck it, she's not going to win a Democratic nomination. The last thing the Democrats need is to assume the burden of overcoming both her bad name, AND sexism.
Pot, Kettle, etc. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, come now! The United States Senate itself is "a paragon of loose morals and corrupting influences!" If Congress spent half of the energy it spends on trying to reform us on reforming itself, we might actually have a respectable national government for once.
I play video games to get away from stuff like this, and now some USS wants to take that away from me as well?
Excuse Me? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:3, Insightful)
There absolutely are moral regulations that are necessary. Laws that prevent murder legislate morality. Would you want to ban those? Laws banning lewd acts with siblings and offspring are perfectly valid moral laws that have sound logic behind them. Do you wish to overturn these in your quest to get the "man" off your back?
Start drawing some lines about what you personally consider morally reprehensible and tell me you think it should be a free-for-all society. Now consider when we have to start drawing lines.
Re:STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:1, Insightful)
kill bot factory = not a problem
art = real threat
Re:STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Some Perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:2, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be better to, instead of limiting what a child sees, teach him or her about what is right or wrong? In having this knowledge, the child can make an informed decision about "sensitive" topics, such as violence. when he or she does not have a parent present to give advice. Parents cannot be everywhere at once; at some point in a child's life, he or she will have to make such a decision alone. Would you have the government prevent your child from having to make the decsion? Or would you rather have the child make it for him/herself using the wisdom and morals gleaned from his or her parents' teachings?
Re:maybe i'm gittin' old... (Score:5, Insightful)
We are invited to sympathize with Tony Soprano as he:
- Covers up the murder of a stripper by one of his henchmen.
- Kills and decapitates the very same henchman for mistreating an animal he liked.
- Shatters the knee of a gambler who owes him money
- Bankrupts the father of his daughter's best friend
- Cheats on his wife with multiple partners
Why don't people complain about The Sopranos they way they do about GTA?
Because people understand that The Sopranos is intended for adults. GTA and games like it are also intended for adults, but there are a lot of people out there who don't understand that.
Re:Quick! BAN BOOKS! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a straw-man argument.
Besides, no one's (no one sane, anyway) is suggesting these games be banned. However, their sale should be restricted to those who society has decided are old enough to perceive the difference between fantasy and reality. If a parent or guardian believes their kid is mature enough to handle it, fine. They can buy it for them. We don't allow kids to buy alcohol, cigarettes or porn until we think they're old enough to decide for themselves. Why should games with adult themes be any different?
Frankly, too many parents are totally IGNORANT of what their kids are watching, playing and listening to. So parents should be more informed, who disagrees with this?
MOST kids have a problem discerning the difference between fantasy and reality, at one age or another. I know I did (at least, until about 8 or so). And who among us didn't have a teenage friend who honestly believed professional wrestling was real?
Give me a break.
m-
Not that easy. (Score:2, Insightful)
I do NOT control the enviroment of the 800 other kids in their school.
So, at wnat point does somebody step in when other kids aren't behaving?
Every syy an 8 year old reinact a killing from GTA when 'playing'? I have, too many times to think these games pose 'no influence'.
" torturing someone in a war that was permitted under false pretenses is morally acceptable "
nobody said it was moral. remember the outrage?
To insinuate she has no morals because of something her husband did is just shallow.
Do you blame her, or the people who voted for GW (Score:3, Insightful)
Politically, this stance on video games is pretty safe, and you'll note that all she's doing here is saying we should study how bad the problem really is.
She could be doing this knowing full and well that any honest study may come back with the result of "these are no worse than movies and books", with the final result being ( in the worst case ) congress passing laws requiring age restrictions on games. Honestly, I think that's going to far, and they're actually likely to get struck down in court ( IF we can keep GW from packing in another serious social conservative, which isn't looking good ), but in the long run, it might be good for the industry and result in even *more* explicit games. When you have to get a game from behind the counter or from a local non-blockbuster video store or an online source because *mart is too weak to carry it, the gloves are off, you can make that game as nasty as you want.
In the long run, a video game is no different than a movie in a lot of ways, so if there's some lame decency rating system that prevents a minor from buying a really gory, racist, sexist movie, then that same system should be placed on games, in all seriousness and fairness. But it should actually ( I think ) be the same system- it's not right to use stricter standards for games than other video content.
Untimately, though, we have a generally bad situation in America, where people are abdicating their parental responsibilities to the state, and it's not OK. If your kid is playing a graphic game, and you don't want them to, you should be able to prevent them without affecting the rest of society. It's no different than letting them buy a really gory or violent DVD. Don't let them do it, and take it and punish them if they get one. You're the parent, act like it. If you want the state to police your morals, move to Iran, they'll help you out.
Re:Quick! BAN BOOKS! (Score:3, Insightful)
Put your jump to conclusions mat away, dumbass.
Re:STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not permitted. In fact in case you have not noticed several people are being tried or have already been convicted of these crimes. I have a feeling that more people in the CIA need to be put on trial.
"but allowing an incapacitated woman to pass away peacefully is not. "
The court is on your side so far on this one. But isn't good that all the questions about it have been brought up. I for one do not know if starving to death is "peaceful" as you put it. They claim she does not feel pain but then why did the Hospice give her morphine? She left no living will and her family is even at odds over it. This is in no way a simple case.
"Or how the President willed a young woman to suck him off and put a cigar in her vagina because he had the power to do so was still allowed to run this "moral" country after he was found guilty of lying?"
You got me on this one. I have no freaking idea. All I hear is that he was a good president and that the economy was better when he was president. Frankly giving him credit for what was an HUGE stock bubble plus the rise of the Internet plus the IT investment in Y2K
I feel that everything you have pointed out except the Shivo case are more signs of the problem than the root cause. The very fact that so many people like to play GTA is a bad sign. Couldn't the same style of game involve sneaking jews out of Nazi Germany or trying to bring down an oppressive government? The very idea of being good or a hero has fallen out of favor and become comedy. It is sad.
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:4, Insightful)
The end result, to any person who doesn't read the reports with an agenda, is that the studies are skewed based on the method of measurement. There's something akin to Heisenberg in Sociology (another guy with an 'H' name): that the results are changed by the observation and the phrasing of the survey question or definition of metrics.
One funny case was in a home for violent boys. One set of boys got to watch gorey, violent TV and movies and the other set only PBS and screened shows. The boys who were forced to watch only non-violent TV ended up being so upset and violent that they finally forced the researcher to let them watch the shows they enjoyed again.
Re:Some Perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
All that means is that she's a Democrat. What else is new? Democrats have always believed that the wealthy should be forced to give up more money in order to help those that are less fortunate. The thinking behind that is that the wealthy can afford to lose relatively more money without suffering, whereas the poor desperately need that money to continue operating in our society. The reason why this is considered a "good thing" is that having a large and ineffective poor population is bad for everyone in the society, even the wealthy. The wealthy still depend on the services of low-income individuals, so it's important to have a stable group of low-income working people in the society.
A single wealthy person may be willing to give up some of his wealth to help the poor, but alone he is powerless to make a real difference. That is why Democrats generally think that private charity is insufficient, and so taxes must be used. That levels the playing field among all the wealthy. If I were a millionaire, I would be less inclined to donate money to charity if I thought that I was the only one doing it.
Disclaimer: I'm a Libertarian, so I present the above paragraphs for academic discussion only. I'm not saying that this reflects my personal view.
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone ignore her--what's really going on (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone should just ignore her. This is Hillary Clinton just trying to appear centrist in order to set herself up for a 2008 Presidential run. She's been saying a lot of things lately about "faith" and "morals" due to the "moral values" issue of the last election.
I don't even care if you're Democrat. Just pointing out what is obviously going on, and why she's suddenly speaking out on this. Decide what you want (personally, I'm not sure she'll ever successfully shake her image as an ultra-liberal from upper New York).
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:5, Insightful)
But no way is my 11 year old son going to play it.
And last I checked, there ARE ratings on these games, like on movies. We don't need anything more do we? More laws? WTF?
My son plays Mario and other games like that on his Gamecube. No, not the most exciting games in the world, but he likes them. We also don't have a TV other than the one that the Gamecube is hooked up on.
No cable or even over-the-air TV. Because I'm making a statement? Yeah, kinda...I don't feel like paying 60 bucks a month for basic cable here from Comcast. And no antena can really pull down a broadcast. So, we've been without TV now for almost a year in the new house and guess what, we don't miss it.
Sorry, got off on a tangent. This is common sense kind of stuff here folks, and Hillery is mainly just saying "hey, look at me...over here...yoo hoo...I've got something sort of controversal to say, yet not really". Yeah, I'm a little jaded.
Re:STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:5, Insightful)
Demonstrate to me that my decade plus of playing wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Quake, and so on will compel me to go out and kill someone.
Then we'll talk about sound logic.
Re:Some Perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't you join my party? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called being an Independent.
I learned long ago that political parties are nothing more than organized religions. They're only right some of the time, and they all tell the truth, but only their agreeable versions of it.
Lean Democrat, if that so suits you. But do it because it's what you believe, not what the party believes. Clearly, you are already disillusioned with the Democrats. So don't be one, and wait along for someone to come along you agree with and vote for them based on the issues, not affiliation.
You'd be amazed how difficult this concept is for so many people. "Which party are you?" "None." *blank stare*
Re:Or... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense.
The village is simply the setting in which the child is raised. The job of the parent is to raise a kid capable of coping with the time he or she will spend wading through the cesspool of humanity's lowest common denominators.
i was absolutely stunned when i was waiting in line to buy my copy of GTA-SA, when a 12-ish year old was getting his mother to buy it for him.
Some exceptional "12-ish year olds" can handle sex and/or violence and understand the difference between entertainment and reality.
This is why a parent can accompany their kids to R-rated movies.
That kid's mom might have simply been a lazy person who was not paying attention to the sort of game she was buying for her kid.
Parents frequently make the same mistake with comic books. I recall once, in the late 80s, standing next to a woman who was thinking of buyng a Batman comic for her kid. I quitly grabbed a copy and flipped it open for her to a page in which Robin bitterly threw a man to his death off a high-rise balcony, and explained to her that the target market for most of the comics she was looking at was young adults. She thanked me and started carefully looking for something a little more suitable for her little urchin.
On the other hand, it could be that this mom has taken the time to teach her kid morals, ethics, and the difference between fantasy and reality, and while a child enjoying such a game might offend your sensibilies, she might have a more permissive world-view about that sort of thing. Plus, for all you know, the kid was a very young-looking 15 or 16.
The answer: (Score:5, Insightful)
Where'd all the real republicans go?
It won't change until you find a way to convince the general public to stop voting people they don't really want up through the primary elections just because they think they can win, and find a way to convince the general public to stop believing fabricated rhetoric from the "news" telling them what to think about a candidate's character.
It's a much bigger problem than just finding a new candidate. It's a systemic problem involving the distribution and control of information, and it has hit both parties.
Murder isn't about morals (Score:3, Insightful)
The same is true of most more basic laws. They are about stopping something we recongise as harmful. Not harmful in the moral sense, but in the physical sense. Like theft, if someone deprives you of your property, you are harmed by that since you no longer have that property to use. If it is allowed to happen, society is harmed since people are less inclined to work to legally produce thigns, since they can just take them instead (and risk having them taken).
The difference here is, there's no harm that's ever been shown. I've never seen a study that shows that videogames cause violent behaviour. I've seen some that make a weak case for correlation, but not only are they not well conducted, it is an equally valid hypothesis that more violent people like the games, not that the games make them more violent.
That's why it's legslating morality. People feel that these games are "offensive" and so want to get rid of them. It's not because there is any actual harm caused, nor any proof, even weak, of an indirect causal link to harm being caused, it's just because they don't happen to like them.
its not ok!!! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot Translator (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree that playing such a videogame wouldn't be a cause of that kind of behavior, I think it's important to keep in mind a powerful social/psychological concept called "validation". People (not just children) have thoughts, and then they decide whether to go with their thoughts partly based on whether they get validation of those thoughts from others. The problem I have with GTA (other than that I can't understand why anyone would consider it entertaining) is that it's a form of validation of these behaviors.
Also, call me a Puritan if you want, but I'd rather live in a society where people find rape and murder distasteful rather than one where they find it amusing. Even if it doesn't actually cause more violence, still on an aesthetic level, I'd rather not be around people who find these things entertaining. I think it's a sign of good character if someone is repelled by ugly things, and hopefully most people consider prostitution and murder ugly.
However, that does not mean I think the government should step in and regulate it, and it does not mean that I think politicians who go on and on about it couldn't possibly be trying to further their own political gain...
Re:Doesn't the solution seem obvious? (Score:2, Insightful)
I just gave a lecture to my Aunt for letting my 13 year old cousin rent GTA. It is the PARENTS who need to enforce, along with the stores. Take an interest in what your kids are doing with their time on their video games, and enforce the ratings.
I'm fairly sure that the kids playing GTA are not being supplied with smokes, booze, and porn.. or maybe they are.
Yes, that sound bite is key (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest issue is that most parents think the same way. Most don't bother to investigate what kind of games their chilren are playing. They assume that it's a video game so it must be designed for children.
If the government wants to fix this problem, they need to make stores enforce those ESRB [esrb.org] ratings the same way stores and theatres honour the MPAA [mpaa.org] rating system.
Independent My Ass (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot Translator (Score:2, Insightful)
In any case, the fundamental problem here is that in America we like to pretend that this stuff doesn't happen, and that by covering Junior's eyes ears and mouth until he's 18 and he can be kicked out of the house (having done his duty in saving mom and dad some tax debt). Then he'll go to college, study hard, marry a virgin that's happy to raise babies and make his pot roast every night. Unfortunately, the Brady Bunch was only a TV show and the real world is much more complex. Yes there are hookers. Yes there are murderers. It's up to the parents to introduce their kids to these facts in a way that's constructive. If they don't, then it's very possible that - video game or not - their kid will be hit headfirst without guidance with the ideas of sex and murder and they will either steer clear or revel in it.
America's Army (Score:2, Insightful)
problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
People over 18 are considered adults for all practical purposes, and should not be told what games they can and cannot play. As a 21 year old, I LOVE the violence in these games as I realize that they are pure fantasy. If I am willing to spend money to purchase this game, Rockstar should be permitted to make it if there's a market.
If children area buying the game when they are underage, then THAT is the problem that needs to be addressed, not whether people should make games like this. Because there is a whole market who is able to handle this "realism" and as part of that market, I don't want to have something I find fun taken away because some moralistic bitch wants to impose her morals on my life.
Re:Or... (Score:2, Insightful)
i'm a 30 year old man. he's a 12 year old child.
some things are for grwon-ups, others arent.
if i wanted to go to a nudie bar, can i consider it bad form to see a father taking his 12 year old? is that hypocrisy?
Nor does GTA command anyone to murder (Score:5, Insightful)
So while you contend that the OT doesn't apply to modern people (care to back that up? not saying it can't be, just want to see fi you can) some people may get the wrong idea, and that is what we are worried about with GTA right? That someone might read the sotry and believe they should actually do it.
I mean clearly there are many that think at least some parts of the OT are to be taken literally. Look at all those that cite it as reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. Or how about the jurors receantly that cited the eye for an eye part when deciding to sentence a rapist to death (http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?IDLink=1421604
Point is that the Bible is full of authorization to do violence to others. Now perhaps the way you choose to interpret it says that doesn't apply now, that's fine, but it is still there. GTA doesn't command anyone to do anything, it's just a game, yet people seem to object to it based on its content. Why then, isn't there the same objection to the bible (rehtorical question)?
Parental Responsibility (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:3, Insightful)
Start drawing some lines about what you personally consider morally reprehensible and tell me you think it should be a free-for-all society. Now consider when we have to start drawing lines.
If my rights stop where yours begin, you can create a reasonable and just society without resorting to talk of "morality".
I hope I'm not plagiarizing J.S. Mill here, but
I think it would be reasonable to repeal all laws in which there is no "victim". As an adult, I should have the perfect right to ingest PCP. If I infringe on someone else's rights (creating a victim) while high on PCP, then I should be punished for that crime.
If both of us have the right to live, you do not have the right to murder me.
I should have the right to play whatever video games I chose. If I go and hurt people, whether or not I ever played video games, I should be punished for it.
These are the basic mechanics of liberty. If we chose to give up our freedom for the common good, we have become a socialist society.
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe she is simply voicing her belief- a belief that she happens to share with the majority of her constituency (peers)?
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:1, Insightful)
I really hope that you are not suggesting giving an 11 year old kid a gun.
Video games will always be a more responsible gift than actual firearms. That i have to say this is absolutely insane.
Re:STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they legislate the protection of rights. You seem to be confusing justice and morality.
"Laws banning lewd acts with siblings and offspring are perfectly valid moral laws that have sound logic behind them."
Then you'd have numbers and links supporting your statement, correct? And what's the point of these laws with today's contraceptives? Better yet, there are many types of "lewd acts" that can't possibly lead to impregnation, should they be banned as well?
Alternatively, even if you can demonstrate that children that are the product of incest will have greatly increased risk of birth defects, what about legislating against couples that aren't related yet would have a similar risk of birth defects, due to one parent or the other passing on a flawed gene? If you're going to restrict having a child on the grounds of possible genetic defects, why are you singling out one particular kind of problem area over another? Your blessed morality?
I do agree with you that anti-incest laws are an example of legislating morality, but for me that's an example of what's wrong with the concept, not what's right.
Rated R (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This wouldn't be quite so hypocritical... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway. Two problems with your post.
1. Senator Clinton doesn't represent the government. She represents the plurality of people of NY that elected her.
2. Senator Clinton opposed the war, therefore even if she did "represent the government," I do not think it is hypocritical of her to blast the violence in the game.
Having said all that, this is an obvious ploy to make people her see her as a centrist instead of a leftist. In other words, politics as usual.
Re:STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:1, Insightful)
The debate on this issue is really about who is allowed to *purchase* the game. Right now ESRB guidlines for retailers are voluntary. What's wrong with making them mandatory; requiring parents to buy these games for their kids?
Re:Some Perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
The context was called, and the OP tried to defend it by modifying the argument, and in doing so enclosed the word context in quotes, as if it were a laughable term.
Fact is, the quote was used in reference to taking away cold hard cash and redistributing it, and the original post implied it was in reference to taking away rights (which are obviouslly not redistributable). We can argue, off topically about whether or not that's a good or not, but the point is, that quote from Clinton just doesn't have a bearing in this discussion, there is no way to infer her opinion on the broader topic based on her belief that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate.
But even trying to relate the two wouldn't be necessarily moronic, it would be futile sure... but trying to use the quote, remove the context, then apply it to a new discussion, then get called on it, then say that the idea of context is "regardless" is, in my opinion, moronic.
If I was just trying to flame I would've stayed AC... but I hope the above clarifies.
My letter to Senator Clinton (Score:1, Insightful)
Dear Senator Clinton,
0
Quotes you as saying:
"Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them..."
I am a registered voter in New York.
The reason why I am writing is regarding your recent comments regarding the video game industry -- specifically the Rockstar Games title "Grand Theft Auto".
The article http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=766
I'm intrigued that you would join the bandwagon on this issue as it is uncharacteristic with regard to your record.
I'm curious as to whether or not you've actually played the game that you are so sharply criticizing.
If you had spent any time playing the game, you would understand that nobody is encouraged to have sex with, or kill prostitutes. The fact is that Rockstar Games has created a dark and immersive world that is not intended for children. The box is clearly labeled that way. In this immersive world, you can, in fact, solicit the services of prostitutes. Furthermore, you can murder them, and you can take their money (as you can with any other character in the game). However, the behavior which you keenly point out is only incidental. It is not the purpose of the game by any stretch of the imagination. It is simply a byproduct of creating an immersive criminal fantasy-world.
Would you prefer that adult games set in dark and immersive environments not allow for choices that would be illegal and unethical in the real world? If this were the case, how could such games still be set in dark or immersive environments? If it is OK to censor the game, what differentiates video games from movies, books, or other forms of entertainment.
I suppose that the answers to these questions are pretty obvious (you've likely never played the game which you've loudly criticized, and you likely don't care what the objective of the game is.)
The road that you're taking us down is the beginning of a slippery slope which leads to censorship. I'm afraid that with this, my support for you is quickly waning. Your words have been a rallying cry of social conservatives for the past few years. Their goal is to censor this, as well as other video games.
Outside of my feelings on your political rhetoric, I am concerned about the $90 million that you propose spending on research to investigate games on electronic media and children. While I fully support gathering data for scientific purposes, I'm not convinced that it's an appropriate use of government dollars. You have already showed personal bias, and I am extremely concerned that this study is anything beyond political. If it is politically motivated, it will likely be a biased study before it even starts. We already have quite a few biased studies on this topic (from all sides of the discussion). How would this help anyone any further?
If you are interested in my support (and support from like-minded people), I respectfully request that you stay out of my personal affairs, including the form of entertainment that I choose.
With regards,
(name withheld for AC purposes)
Re:Or... (Score:2, Insightful)
I let my 9 year old daughter play it, guess what she did?
My neice is considerably younger than 9.
She drove around in the taxi giving people rides or the fire truck/ambulence helping people...
When she watched me play it she kept telling me "No don't shoot the people!!! Don't drive on the sidewalk!!! You're not supposed to be the bad guy!!"
What a great kid! You must live in a terrific village!
... or maybe your parenting skills played some small role in how she's turning out. Call me crazy, but I think it might have been a factor.
Re:Underlying Issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Now the stores on the other hand I really don't think should be selling the material to kids any more than they sell them pornography. But why is it the responsibility of the producer of the content? Unless they are distributing it to end users, anyway.
Re:Doesn't the solution seem obvious? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but the sad truth is, most young children aren't the ones purchasing the games. They ask their parents for it, their grandparents, whoever, and the parents purchase the games. Parents need to take the responsibility to know what they are getting their kids. There are a lot of great games that can help a child develop. GTA isn't one of them. GTA is for older teens and young adults. But if a parent doesn't look at the games they let their children play, it doesn't matter if you have to be an adult to purchase it.
While it might be good for a concerned store clerk to ask a parent if they know what they are buying for their kids, most minimum wage workers aren't concerned enough to risk upsetting a customer by asking personal questions about their parenting.
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you at least know what age these children were? I could easily see a 5 or 6 year old being more violent after excessively violent video games and tv shows, but I'm not so sure about a 16 year old, unless they had completely horrible parenting.
The type of "violence" matters too. "More prone to hitting each other" is simply not accurate enough. Plenty of kids hit each other playing around, it's whether or not they intend to hurt each other that matters IMHO. I remember when I was a kid at school, the dinner-ladies were constantly stopping us from "playing army" and other such games that were perfectly harmless, and we didn't have any intention of hurting each other whatsoever. Kids sometimes fake fight for fun. That isn't real violence.
Come on... (Score:2, Insightful)
Mod me "troll" if you must, but I'm sick and tired of people rallying blindly behind the First Amend. and defending crap media at all costs.
Just because people have the right to do something doesn't mean it should be done. There's a difference between what's legal and what's responsible. I'll defend people's free speech as much as the next guy, but, come on folks. Regardless of your politics, some of the crap in these games is really beyond the pale. No way in hell I'd want my kids playing GTA
Yeah, yeah, "free speech" and "it's just a game" and all that horseshit aside, the content of these games is a horrible commentary on society. So murdering prostitutes sells? What does that say about our collective values?
The problem here, IMO, (I've been informed that I no longer have the right to refer to my opinions as humble) is that the media (games, TV, movies etc.) is giving us what we want and what we want is appalling crap. It comes down to personal responsibility, folks. This reminds me of the early 90's move towards V-chips in TV's. Handy if you abdicate your parenting responsibility and use the TV as a babysitter, I guess. If more people just monitored (cared?) what their kids play/watch and voted with their dollars by not buying, media would get the message and we would be on our way to a solution.Sen. Clinton etal. may not have the solutions, (and I most certainly don't) but people denying that these games are problematic are at the root of the problem.
Denial ain't just a river.
Re:Underlying Issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Excellent question. The answer, unfortunately, is an idealistic one. Simply put, I think folks have a responsibility for what they do, say, and produce. Its the same responsibility that comes from the decisions you make in your life. If you're responsible for what you say, and its effects on those around you, why are no longer responsible when you use a bullhorn?
At least that's the general concept. I'm still trying to find the best way to articulate it, but that's it in a nutshell.
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:5, Insightful)
But, when I went to a friend's house and played it with my friend's 12 year old son in the room (we were just racing around vice city) and the kid yells "pick up the hooker! Give her money and run her over and get it back!" it made me immediately question video games, violence, GTA, and the future of America.
Needless to say, we shut off the game. Asked him where he heard about that (at school) and dad sent him to his room.Oh how they sway... (Score:2, Insightful)
No Hillary. Bad Hillary. Move out of my Liberal State of NY. We do not want you anymore. You do not get the idea of a free nation. You're bent mind is out to erase our liberties for the sake of our children.
Please leave humanity Hillary. I speak as an adult who grew up as a child that ran around with toy guns pretending to be a soldier with my friends in our backyards. My father grew up with toy guns running around pretending to be a cowboy when he was younger in his friends backyards...
When you run around with toy guns at the age of 5-13. You pretend to kill things, and you pretend to die.
It's apart of life. Its called EXPERIENCE.
In GTA there are consequences. You shoot, kill and the cops chase you. You're playing as a criminal. Just as my friends played the enemy in our little backyard soldier games as a young boy. And yes, just as my father's friends played the evil North American Indians in his friends fantasy cowboys and indians adventures.
Hillary is failing to realize her youth. She grew up sucking dick just like the rest of the women who now have children.
Its an important thing to realize. I grew up with porn and videogames, and i'm a pretty decent guy. I dont smoke, i dont drink, i dont kill, i dont squander away the entire savings of my corperations workers... i do not take 120 million dollar bonuses and flee the corperation when the go bankrupt (like some of your high society friends hillary)
Nope... Folks like me, are just your average decent American. The kind of people that hate when you pull shit like this. You know, the kind of shit that makes you look like you think you're better than all of us. The kind of thing that says "I'm Hillary, I dont shit or wipe my own ass"
You're out of touch with the world, Mrs Senator Busy Body. Please move out of our State and let a real Liberal or Libertarian take over. We dont need you sabotaging our freedoms (We have enough asshole conservative republicans doing that already. In the name of god none the less)
So sway as the tall grass does, because the tall grass goes where the wind tells it. The tall grass has no spine, no sense of direction, just a need to appease the wind.
You're no leader, but you certainly are a politician. I hope one day, you will remember that you too sucked dick once. I hope that you some day return to us and say "hey i wiped my own ass... and i even shit first!" So we can all look at you and say "finally you're one of us again". Because you have certainly left the relm of reality.
I'll end this the way i began. Hillary using the word diss. A word that was spawned from the ghetto, from the underworld where freedom is respected and excerised at the ultimate horror of our ruling class uptights.
Back when Tipper Gore formed the PMRC and went after the music industry for these same arguments... ICE-T wrote a little diddy called Freedom of Speech. I had the tape back then, and i live by its sentiment today. Here are the lyrics.
Freedom of Speech, that's some motherf**kin' bullshit
You say the wrong thing, they'll lock your ass up quick
The FCC says "Profanity - No Airplay"?
They can suck my dick while I take a shit all day
Think I give a f**k about some silly bitch named Gore?
Yo PMRC, here we go, raw
Yo Tip, what's the matter? You ain't gettin' no dick?
You're bitchin' about rock'n'roll, that's censorship, dumb bitch
The Constitution says we all got a right to speak
Say what we want Tip, your argument is weak
Censor records, TV, school books too
And who decides what's right to hear? You?
Hey PMRC, you stupid f**kin' assholes
The sticker on the record is what makes 'em sell gold
Can't you see, you alcoholic idiots
The more you try to suppress us, the larger we get
[Verse 2]
[You have t
Re:Young Republicans (Score:3, Insightful)
I think all the "real Republicans" have either shut up the last 4 years, realizing that their GOP has betrayed them, leaving them "politically homeless." They can't be Republicans, b/c the GOP is just as willing to implement fiscal irresponsibility as the Democrats, but they can't be Libertarians because they're "loony", and besides, libertarian economics in many cases runs counter to the desires of big business (despite the ignorant claims otherwise by every left-winger around). And obviously the socialists and Greens (same thing, really) are out...
So the "business Republicans", "western conservatives", "Reagan Republicans", etc. -- the economically/fiscally-conservative, socially-moderate Republicans -- they're all sitting on the bench, watching Bush play a miserable game of Republican politics, with a moderate-to-leftish fiscal policies and extremely-conservative social policies.
Re: a VAT... I argue vigorously against a VAT (and I'm troubled by the fact that Dennis Hastert, a BA in Economics and Speaker of the House, actually thinks it's somehow a good idea). Value-Added Taxes (VAT) are nothing but trouble as far as technological growth is concerned (that same growth which just so happens to swell the growth of the economy as a whole via increased efficiency in all manner of goods/services rendered)... Taxing each stage of production only serves to have 2 effects:
1) Companies bring various stages of production in-house, to avoid the tax, meaning (if conventional the business sense to outsource areas of non-specialty is to be believed as more-efficient than doing things in-house) that as businesses bring the various stages of production under their wing, they not only grow vastly-larger and become more unwieldly in their massiveness, but there exists fewer companies in the marketplace from which consumers can choose. In effect, a VAT encourages monopoly, which is rarely good for the consumer.
2) Companies become less-prone to developing new goods/services, as they become taxed more with each successive level of complexity (tax the iron-ore sold to the steel mill which makes the steel which then gets taxed when it is sold to Ford to make the car which is taxed again when it is finished and sold to the consumer). So a VAT limits innovation (and must be partly to blame for Europe's eroding economic strength).
Probably the worst aspect of a VAT, however, is that it is a tax which is invisible to the end-consumer; you and I wouldn't see the tax, except as it is hidden behind the price of the product. Because it's invisible to the consumer, there is less incentive for them to oppose it, and to oppose its growth. It's the same problem we have in income taxes vs. consumption taxes -- income taxes are filed (though not collected) once a year, at the opposite end of the year from when elections are held, so politicians have a "lag time" in which they wait for the public to realize how much they pay in income taxes before they go on their usual spending sprees.
Contrast this with a sales tax, which slaps the consumer in the face every time he/she buys something; it makes being taxed bluntly-distasteful to the consumer. If we are to strive for lower taxes (as any "real Republican" or libertarian would typically pine for), this is certainly preferable to income taxes, and even moreso than a VAT...
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:2, Insightful)
It is a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Some Perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
Societies that have insufficient wealth redistribution mechanisms (e.g. Haiti), and simply let the rich use their power to continually concentrate wealth in the hands of a progressively smaller set wind up in the shitter fast. Of course, societies that have excessive wealth redistribution mechanisms (e.g. the old Communist bloc) also suck.
The question is not, should the government take from the rich and give to the poor. The question is, how much, and by what mechanisms?
Re:STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:3, Insightful)
Your case is a sample size of 1, with really only one data point. If we had a clone of you that didn't play the games, then we might be able to do tests to measure how prone you are to anger, etc. Comparing you to before you played these games is pointless because you were younger then, and at a different stage of psychological development.
You apparently believe that a lack of a definitive correlation in only your case implies that any other such study is null and void.
Now would you like to keep talking about sound logic?
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Well gee, maybe those hundreds of parents should get off their collective fat asses and pay some attention to what their kids are doing. Don't like? Fine, then don't play it, don't let your kids play it. Don't waste time and money to keep other people and their kids from playing it.
Re:You forgot Set C! (Score:3, Insightful)
I do find that if I play GTA for very long, I feel a little bit sad. I don't like the game that much because it is too violent for my tastes.
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:She is actually quite rightwing (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets face it. Bush never had a job his father didn't set him up in. After his businesses failed, he decided to buy a baseball team. Then he decided to run for governor of Texas. Then he decided to run for President. I feel sorry for him that he's only going to be President for just under 4 years. What the hell is he going to do after that?
Get a real job? Ha-ha.
Re:She is actually quite rightwing (Score:5, Insightful)
Or Ronald Reagan, or Jimmy Carter, or any number of other presidents we have. Why is there this common notion that we need someone "qualified" to be President. The Constitution requires that a candidate for the presidency must be a "natural-born" citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. That appears to be all of the "qualifications" needed.
Part of the problem with this country is we think we have to elect lifetime politicians to every office and somehow incumbents magically are better at governing. I wish I knew how to change the attitude of the American people on this. I would LOVE to see some average Joe off the street elected president. Someone intelligent for sure, but someone that hasn't made a career out of lying to everyone and could serve is four years and get out.
I probably don't agree with Jon Stewart's politics, but I have not problem with him running and might actually vote for him because he's not a career politician.
Re:She is actually quite rightwing (Score:4, Insightful)
I would LOVE to see some average Joe off the street elected president. Someone intelligent for sure, but someone that hasn't made a career out of lying to everyone and could serve is four years and get out.
I know this is hard to believe but not every politician has built a career on lies. I would dare say even most of the ones in DC haven't built their careers on lies. A lot of people happen to get into politics to try and make a change.
I don't have a problem with career politicians either if they have made a career out of fighting for what they believe in (even if I happen to disagree it) rather then a career out of just being a politician for the sake of being a politician (the leadership of the NYS Legislature comes to mind in that department). I'd have an easier time voting for John McCain even though I disagree with him on a number of huge issues (abortion being the first that comes to mind), because whatever else you can say about the man, he speaks his mind and fights for what he believes in.
As far as needing someone "qualified" to be President... I don't care what the Constitution says. I'm not giving some stranger off the street the nuclear launch codes. I want somebody with experience in politics, diplomacy and who has actually seen something of the World and knows how it operates. Note: This is not George W. Bush either.
Re:It's not the government's place (Score:1, Insightful)
However, who will protect the kids from their delinquent parents? If some parents cannot be trusted to raise their kids right and we cannot introduce draconian birth control laws, then we are left with legislating to protect the minds and bodies of the children. Its the same as how we legilate to physically protect our kids from violence and abuse. Allowing kids to view obscene content is abuse of parental responsibility. Emotional and mental damage is no less real than physical damage.
The fact that the kids can still get their hands on the stuff, it is clear that the surrounding laws, enforcement and punishments need to be addressed. At the end of the day, parents need to be held accountable. How? Laws and enforcement of said laws.
No kid should see much of what we see on TV News, for that matter either. There is no need for graphical images of brutality. I remember being disturbed by seeing killings on TV news when I was a kid. There are just some things that you cannot simply un-see.
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Cough. I'm glad I'm not the only one. Makes it slightly less embarrassing.
What's particularly strange is that although this "kill the hooker in GTA" meme is now well known, it is only ever mentioned by people who don't actually play the game. Nobody who plays the game would ever do it because there's no point. You don't make any money, you don't complete a mission, so it's an entirely pointless thing to do.
I'm convinced that the feature is there purely to cause controversy and get free advertising for the game, based on the premise that even bad publicity is worth having. The fact that your friend's 12-year old was discussing it in the playground is proof of that. It's a taboo thing to do, so it's immediately worthy of gossip.
MODS: flamebait? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:She is actually quite rightwing (Score:5, Insightful)
This was the exact logic that lead to the nomination of John Kerry.
As long as this logic is followed, only people like John Kerry will be nominated by the Democrats for election.
And as long as this logic is followed, the Democratic party will continue losing every single election they enter.
Listen: There is no such thing as "centrist". There is no "political spectrum". There are only two things. There are people who stand for something, and people who don't. Right now the Republicans are winning elections because they stand for something and they can convince people of what they stand for. If you put this up against what the democrats are offering-- which the democratic leadership thinks of as "centrism", but everyone else in the entire world sees as "we agree with the republicans, but we don't want to take it quite as far"-- it will lose every time. And in every election since 1994 not involving Bob Dole, it has. Whether what the Republicans offer is what people want is uncertain, but it is certain people would rather have real Republicans than fake Republicans.
Independent? Is that so? (Score:1, Insightful)
Aren't you they guy who keeps posting stuff about how Fox News is "fair and balanced"? Aren't you the guy who was screaming about how Wikipedia had Abu Graib listed under sexual torture? Aren't you the guy who always get bent out of shape when someone posts a joke about George W. Bush?
What the hell makes you think that you're independent? As someone else said (and was wrongly modded down), you sure smell like a Republican to me.
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:3, Insightful)
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:5, Insightful)
What's particularly strange is that although this "kill the hooker in GTA" meme is now well known, it is only ever mentioned by people who don't actually play the game. Nobody who plays the game would ever do it because there's no point.
Hey, that's not true. When I get my fiancee to play GTA, killing hookers is all she wants to do. Actually, not even just hookers, but any woman who happens to be scantily clad. She doesn't care about the missions, races, etc., she just wants to run around killing "sluts".
Even among people who play the game more seriously than my fiancee (like me, for example), the ability to commit violent acts at will is part of the appeal of the game. What those who scapegoat video games (and movies, music, etc.) fail to understand is that the game is a safe and healthy way to release your aggressive urges without having to hurt real people. For the most part, the people committing the real murders and rapes out on the streets aren't the people who have the latest ultra-violent video games to come home to.
Not to be Freudian or anything, but almost all of our entertainment-oriented media (and even much of the media that's not supposed to be about entertainment, like the NEWS) is filled with sex and/or aggression, because ultimately that's what humans get off on. Whether you're talking about movies, video games, sports, gladiators in the arena, or whatever, that's how human entertainment has always been and how it will always be. And there's nothing wrong with that.
And I strongly suspect that even the 12-year old mentioned by the grandparent post understands the difference between play/fantasy violence and real violence. Personally, I think a positive chat about the subject would have done him far more good than resorting to the silly and unproductive send-him-to-his-room tactic.
Re:Hahaha! (Score:0, Insightful)
Can we say "scapegoat" anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:2, Insightful)
At least he knows what the definition of the word "is" is.
LK
Re:She is actually quite rightwing (Score:2, Insightful)
I would LOVE to see some average Joe off the street elected president. Someone intelligent for sure, but someone that hasn't made a career out of lying to everyone and could serve is four years and get out.
As you already noted, by definition, that person is unelectable in the US. The idea of part-time citizen representatives died when politicians learned they could vote wealth and power for themselves and their friends and seemingly reward their voters with pork.
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it hard to agree that this teaches that "it's OK to diss people because they are a woman, they're a different colour or they're from a different place." is accurate.
The common argument against this is that did playing super mario brothers make us all want to jump on and throw turtles around? Did playing tetris make people obsessive about placing blocks in tightly packed configuration? If you played Monopoly as a child are you bound to end up trying to corner a market in your adult life? It's obvious that the things we do as a child have affects upon who we become when we're adults. What isn't clear is what effect playing a violent video game will have on the developing mind. Maybe it causes more violence, maybe it causes LESS evidence (as it serves as an outlet), or maybe it's just a wash... We really need multiple case studies in order to judge this, and I don't believe we have these multiple case studies.
Now let me come back to some specifics on Hillary's comment. First I think if killing a prositute is a diss on all women, isn't jailing prositutes also a diss on all women? I mean after all in both cases an external party is depriving the women of her rights to treat her body as she wishes. Is Hillary for legalized prostituion as well?
Next I haven't heard of any overtly racist portions of GTA or other equally popular games. I think it would have made a pretty big stink if there were racist elements to the games, so I'm not sure where this comes from. I would say the US public has a pretty low level of tolerance for overt racism and you usually hear about it when it occurs anywhere in mainstream media.
Finally, we're allowed to discriminate against people from a different place. We can hate the French all day long for example (American Fries anyone?) and for the most part this doesn't spark outrage. We have a long history of hating different countries for different reasons. Russia, Cuba, etc... We hate the people of a country all the time. It's hating them for their race that's bad! And the US government continues to discrimate against those from foreign countries today. We see it overtly in the form of immigration laws and more recently in the treatment of people siezed during Bush's little war.
On a slightly different note I don't see why this is an issue for the federal government. Do you not want your kids to play GTA? Fine, don't buy them GTA. Oh, but one of their friends might have it! God forbid that as a parent you might need to get involved in your childs life, talk to their friends parents, or even have to say no to your child once in a while. This is just the government pandering to lazy parents who aren't willing to take responsibility for how they raise their children. The more the government does this the lazier parents are bound to become as their responsibilities (and along with those rights!) are taken away from them.
So to sumarize: No one needs to admit anything's true. Saying that without providing any facts is a really lame. Just like Hillary you're playing off the fears of people without any hard data. Where's the problem [disastercenter.com]? As video games have become more and more popular crime rates have been going down. It seems to me that video games occupy teenagers time and cause crime to go down. Perhaps you could get your head out of your ass and admit that this is true.
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:2, Insightful)
Where did communism enter into it?
And which communism do you mean? The state communism theorized by Marx? The total authoritarianism perpitrated by Lenin and Stalin? Libertarian communism as proposed by writers like Puente [anarchosyndicalism.net] and Fontenis [zabalaza.net]? Council communism [answers.com]? Anarcho-Communism [answers.com]?
It's very convenient for apologists for capitalism to claim that all socialism is commmunism, all communism is Soviet-style Marxism/Leninism, the Soviet Union failed, therefore there is no alternative to capitalism, Q.E.D. But there are problems with every step of that chain of logic.
Re:Fantasy and reality (Score:5, Insightful)
No wait, kids can't see Goodfellas. That's a grown up movie.
What, you mean grownups watch movies
I don't know if the US has videogame ratings, but if they do, and they're enforced, children would have a pretty hard time getting their hands on GTA.
If the US doesn't have videogame ratings, or they're not enforced, then that's your problem.
It looks as if someone who doesn't understand video games is trying to create a problem.
Re:We want someone who doesn't want it THAT Bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely goddamn right. The very fact that someone wants to be president is, in my opinion, proof that they are the last person you want to give the job to. I would, in fact, extend this to cover most of those nutcases in the house and senate as well.
Re:We want someone who doesn't want it THAT Bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Too eager to attack the symptoms and not the cause (Score:2, Insightful)
If Grand Theft Auto teaches you how to behave towards people, you don't belong in society to begin with. You have problems that aren't going to be fixed by merely not playing video games.
Our [The U.S.] culture is simply too goddamned repressed. Look at Japan. Granted, they don't have any guns, but you can also see pretty much ANYTHING on TV. And the print media? Christ... You ever seen some of the manga that a kid in Japan is likely to come in contact with over the course of the day?
And guess what? It's an island nation the size of California, with half the population of the U.S. (A population that is FAR from evenly distributed.) If that was America... We would've all gone batshit and destroyed the entire species by now.
It's not the games. It's not television. It's an entire culture of emotionally retarded and repressed (regardless of age) children. The sooner we figure that out, the sooner we can do something about it. Though I doubt that'll ever happen, because these dolts would much rather let the country self destruct so they can go after the SYMPTOMS and ignore the underlying cause.
I'm American. I'm white. I've come to terms with the fact that my culture is pathetically repressed, and make due. I pretty much do nothing but play video games and watch anime. And I have yet to kill people for the hell of it. (Or even for totally legitimate reasons, for that matter.)
This is just my 2 yen, and I'm still pretty groggy from getting up. But tell me I'm wrong. Now, I have to go review the latest omfgwtfbbq murdergame. GOOD DAY TO YOU!