Aussie Attorney General Says Gamers Are Scarier Than Biker Gangs 409
Sasayaki writes "South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson claims, in an interview with Good Game, that gamers were more of a threat to his family than biker gangs. This is the man who has been the biggest opponent to Australia receiving an R18+ rating for video games and who has the power to veto any such law introducing it."
Veto? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bwahahaha! (Score:5, Informative)
Atkinson's got very vocal opposition among biker gangs and gamers.
The reason he feels gamers are more of a threat to his family is because a gamer left a threatening note under his door one night. No biker has done that.
Put yourself in the same situation. What would you consider a more present threat to your safety -- a set of organizations who is opposing you politically (the biker gangs are putting forward their own candidate to run against him), or a set of individuals, one of which has made a threat, in writing, at your home?
Context is everything. The submitter, the editor, and all of the early posters like yourself should do yourselves a favor and (1) read the fucking quote before misattributing words to someone and (2) understand the context in which those words were said.
I'm addicted to slashdot, obviously so if you see my post history. But I'm sick of it becoming the geek tab of fark.
Re:Bwahahaha! (Score:5, Informative)
The article also mentions that in his scuffle with the bikers, he claimed they had BBQ'd and eaten a cat. Then was forced to admit he made it up. Why would you give him any credibility with regards to this supposed threat he received, when he has lied about his opposition in the past?
Re:Bwahahaha! (Score:2, Informative)
Good point, but completely ancillary to the problem I was writing about. :)
FWIW, the bikers did indeed barbecue and eat a cat. This is no surprise -- cats are a common BBQ treat among bikies down under, second in popularity only to shrimps on the barbie [1]. He just wasn't able to prove it, and so had to recant his claim or be sued for libel/slander.
[1] Citation needed. But the recantment was in response to a threatened legal action based upon his inability to prove what he claimed.
Re:Bwahahaha! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bwahahaha! (Score:5, Informative)
Australia must be a land of lolly pops and fluffy clouds, because I'd wager the Attorney General of any other reasonably large country on this planet probably receives a bag full of hate mail ever year. I can only imagine the kind of stuff the US Attorney General gets.
Re:Anecdotal Evidence Disagrees. (Score:2, Informative)
Neither can a sex doll, but you don't call their owners "rapists".
Re:is he right? (Score:3, Informative)
Most 1% er's people see are actually posers. I've been an official photographer for most of the BIG motorcycle events in the eastern half of the USA and real bikers that are real 1%er's are far and few between.. Most of the time you have a 1%er poser. someone that wants to look like a badass but in reality is a big pussy that wants attention. Problem is at Sturgis these posers get their asses kicked by the real 1%ers because they try and pull their bullshit in front of them.
a Real 1%er when you find one will let you know. I've met a few of them, and I steer clear after I buy them a drink and they let me know of who to steer clear of.
So that loser riding his shiny new 2010 harley all leathered up with harley jeans, harley shirt and skull print face mask... He is, in fact, a poser. 1%er's don't have new bikes and dress in all that branded crap at the hardly store.
A real 1%er has a jacket that has road rash on it and looks like he at one time was ran over by a truck, because they typically lead incredibly hard lives. I have almost lost a camera to a 1%er. I gladly handed it over, saying "I'm sorry, here you go".. surprisingly he stopped, asked how to remove the card and threw me the camera back grunting, "NO PICTURES".
You don't screw with a 1%er. In fact I don't even raise my camera in their general direction. After the 6 years of shooting at Sturgis and other big events I can spot them easily.
Re:Bwahahaha! (Score:3, Informative)
And saying something damaging about someone you have a political axe to grind, without any proof, is pretty much the definition of "slander". Thankfully he reduced it back down to "hearsay and bullshit rumors".
Re:Bwahahaha! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I'm an Aussie who says "barbie", as does everyone I know. "Shrimp" OTOH is never used (and if I ever hear the term, I think of really tiny little prawns).
Re:The guy's right (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Veto? (Score:4, Informative)
This is a STATE AG, and for the relevant changes the approval of all the states AG is required.
Atkinson is the holdout.
He is the darling of the Right faction of the Labor
party, which confusingly used to be left wing before they sold out.
Please note in au liberals are the conservative party!
Re:Hells Angels (Score:3, Informative)
For the other 5% you cut the word in half and add "o": lebbo, abbo...
Re:Bwahahaha! (Score:4, Informative)
s/country/state/g. This is a state-level Attorney General, not for the entire country. (US has state-level AGs as well, fyi)
Second, there's a difference between getting nastygrams sent to your office, where they can be filtered by functionaries, and a nastygram sent to your home.
That said, this guy's holding an irrational position if he wants to avoid violence getting in the hands of teenagers, imho. Better off allowing R18+, and then pushing for more games to be rated R18+, so that fewer of them are given to children by parents. Of course, he prefers the 'head-in-sand' approach.
Re:What a tit (Score:3, Informative)
And while we're at it I'm pretty sure that "Australian politician" doesn't mean paranoid, misinformed and dangerously ignorant jerk"... but I could be wrong.
It does actually, though it means it if you drop 'Australian' from there too.
Re:Well, i guess so... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bwahahaha! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well, i guess so... (Score:3, Informative)
Of course the matter isn't being investigated by the police. So I'm inclined to believe that this is another politician lying, which parliamentary privilege gives him the right to do (it also gives politicians the right to expose dangers and corruption without fear of retrobution, which is why it is unfortunately needed). No one in Australia is taking this guy seriously.
This is just proof that Atkinson is scared of opposition like Gamers for Croydon.
Re:Well, i guess so... (Score:4, Informative)
And it's not just little lies about "bikers roasting cats".
He has also brought in a law (since revoked) that required that people blogging about elections to publish their name and address, and to support that law claimed that a certain blogger was "not a real person" - an invention of the Liberal Party.
Prejudiced the trial of people by claiming they were "pure evil - have no hope of rehabilitation".
So he has a history of "discovering evidence" to support his extreme views
He has a law degree - and spent a couple of years working for a newspaper (until he was "removed" for fabricating stories)
So he should know about checking your facts, and, the existence of police.
I believe the appropriate comment is "sucked in!".
Threatening?? (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a copy of the note itself
http://imgur.com/CeACw.png
How does this constitute a threatening letter?
"Dear Mick, I Can Has R18 Rating Pls? kthxbai"
Screen shot Taken from http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/02/16/2820930.htm (not by me)
Talk about the media taking it and running with it and blowing out of proportion
Re:Bwahahaha! (Score:3, Informative)
Shrimp = short person, or the tiny prawns in a "shrimp cocktail".