What's up with Democrats and videogames/censorship?

evilmax17

evilmax17

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/07/news_6128702.html?part=rss&tag=gs_news&subj=6128702

I know this is a few days old, but what's the deal? Granted, I don't know much else about this Yee character, but I know that s/he is a Democrat.

So what's the deal? It seems that every time I hear something negative being said in regards to a videogame, it's coming from a Democrat.

Joe Lieberman (who seems more of a Republican in sheeps clothing than a Democrat) has been vocally against videogames in the past.

Al/Tipper Gore spearheaded the Parental Advisory situation with music, and I'm pretty sure have spoken out against games in the past.

What am I missing? I would think that censorship would be more of a Republican ideal (with all of the religious/moral ties), yet all of this crap is coming from my Home team, and that just makes me confused. The Republicans are the ones that are actively persuing the issue of flag burning, and I would equate that on the same level as banning (or making inaccessable) violent videogames.

Am I confusing "Democrat" with "Liberal"? Are these actions those of particular people, and not necessarily influenced by a party ideal?

Anyone have any insight?
 
San Andreas SHOULD have an AO rating.

If any movie had swearing, killing, and hooker fucking (albeit without nudity) HALF as much as GTA:SA it would be given an NC-17 rating.

I am not saying it needs to be banned, but it should be regulated and given an AO rating so only people who are old enough to play it can buy it.
 
I think the Dems are trying to get in on the whole "family values" wagon since it works so well for the Republicans.
I wish these guys would focus on important issues that don't include video games and flag burning.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']I think the Dems are trying to get in on the whole "family values" wagon since it works so well for the Republicans.
I wish these guys would focus on important issues that don't include video games and flag burning.[/QUOTE]

Well, part of the merging of politics and 'family values' is that it becomes very easy a politically sexy to attack something external to the family.

Comic books caused homosexuality according to federal representatives in the 1950's (perhaps they confused not interacting with women at all as homosexuality; IKIK).

Music was the core cause of perversion since...well, for fucking ever, really.

When was the last time that a politician went to war against parents: if you weren't shitty parents, your kid wouldn't be such a jackass! Well, never (maybe perhaps once); the simple problem is that if you suggest *people* need to change, you're committing political suicide. If you place the blame on something other than your parents' negligence due to their incessant drinking, then it looks like you're doing something constructive for the community.

EDIT: A newsletter I read had an article about a scholar who ran for local office. Within a small (northeastern?) community (I'm picturing Dawson's Creek), the biggest issue was traffic problems. People couldn't get where they were going, even though more roads and lanes were put in less than 5-10 years before. His platform (as a pragmatist)? Increase funding for public transportation, and programs to encourage people to ride on that public transportation.

He came near dead last in the election. There's a moral to that story. [/EDIT]

I just wondered why the entertainment industry doesn't have as powerful, successful lobbyists as other corporations do. Man, if tobacco can survive as long as it has...

Joe Liebermann, even if I don't like the guy, proposed (and perhaps passed) a bill appropriating $9 million to the NSF. This will be given out in grant to researchers to look into the effects of video games on children's deviant behavior (I think 'twin studies' would be particularly cool). Liebermann has been outspoken, and hasn't had any causal proof to make the arguments he has been making, and that really pisses me off. On the other hand, he does seem to want to find what research does say about the matter, so that's good. I only wish he'd shut his craw until some of this research came back.

As for the lack of Republicans on this bandwagon...let me put it this way. If you're at a buffett, and you see all kinds of awesome food, you pile it on, and, almost without fail, you'll run out of room...you may spy a particularly delectable looking dish, one that makes your eyes bug out and your mouth water. But, you have to face facts. Your plate's full, bitch.

For the republicans, queers marrying, women making the decision not to have children they aren't ready to have, and a secular government are among the things that are on their plate. They don't have room for Carl Johnson, since that's pretty low priority compared to what the queers are doing to the soil.

myke.
 
It just boils down to the fact that they want the government to be responsible for a parent's job. Plain and simple. They can't blame lack of parenting because that will offend potential voters. You blame the creators, who already follow a ratings system BTW, and you look like a champion of children. Simple pyschology.
 
Well the ratings system is dubious because the ESRB, at the behest of the gaming industry no doubt, have a useless AO rating. Useless because the sex, violence and nudity is being defined by the M rating and there is nothing for the AO rating to do except wrongly make people believe that M games can be played by kids.

The AO rating should be eliminated and M games should be moved to 18+
 
We should switch to the European game rating system which goes by recommended minimum age instead of a letter.

For example, instead of a "T" rating, a game would be rated "13+".

And GTA would have an "18+" rating instead of "M".


It would clear up the confusion a whole lot, and it wouldn't result in lumping all M games together like they are today, like Half-Life 2 could get a 16+ rating.
 
My 11 year old cousin is bipolar and bought gta 3, and while I was playing it with him he was saying how sometimes just feels like venting like that (he also said this while listening to a bone thug/tupac song called thug love, I turned off the rap music at that point).

Point is, we should use the movie rating and give games like this an nc-17 rating, that way kids cannot buy it without parents, and parents would actually understand the rating.
 
Video games are an easy scapegoat. Parents (i.e. voters) don't want to hear that their child is bad or that their lack of parenting skills are to blame. They want an easy answer to a complex problem. Some 11 year olds can handle GTA and there are some 25 year olds I'd be worried about playing it.

As for why it always seems like a Democrat is attacking video games, I dunno. Lieberman is pretty conservative on the whole. Maybe myke's right - the GOP is just too busy ruining the country in other ways. :lol:
 
Because it's ostensibly "for the children" which is the Democratic mantra.
No one remembers the last great anti-entertainment censorship wave [*not* reaction, but actual governmental-led censorship program]?

PMRC.
Tipper Gore.
"Parental Advisory".

And yes, we have ceded so much power and control to the federal government, that it really doesn't matter who you're talking about, they'll all find a way to take your money and use it on whatever their pet projects are.
And most people *want* the government to "take care" of them or their families.
Public school systems.
Welfare.
Social Security.
Regardless of their reasons for origination, now they are 'yield control to the government' programs. I can't believe the number of people who are saying, "No, I don't want to have the choice to be able to control a small portion of my retirement money, you do it for me, Mr Government Man!"

And, yes, it is seen as a quick fix, ie, could be done in one term, just in time for reelection. Guards abusing prisoners? Close the prison.
Kids who play games killing people? Ban the games.
Kids shooting other kids? Ban the guns.
 
the quest against video games is a hemmeroid(sp?) that flares up every once in a while. When it comes down to it, it doesn't seem to effect anything....ratings on games don't matter unless you are a 15 year old trying to buy GTA at best buy. it seems like the greatest injustice in the world to a young kid. but it really just doesn't matter.

It's an easy thing to make a big fuss about, it doesn't take much effort or research to make connections between the content of certain games and protecting children and thus, it's great political fodder to get attention with.

like dtcarson mentioned-- look at the PMRC. that was a huge deal, but it didn't really accomplish much-- it just made the parental advisory sticker a little bigger. they didn't successfully ban anything.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']d most people *want* the government to "take care" of them or their families.
Public school systems.
Welfare.
Social Security.
Regardless of their reasons for origination, now they are 'yield control to the government' programs. I can't believe the number of people who are saying, "No, I don't want to have the choice to be able to control a small portion of my retirement money, you do it for me, Mr Government Man!"[/QUOTE]

You forgot to mention how the government is going in the direction of taking away abortion rights, taking away freedom of religion (by supporting a certain "mainstream" religion), and taking away the ability of the citizens to protect their property against competing corporate interests.
 
[quote name='camoor']You forgot to mention how the government is going in the direction of taking away abortion rights, taking away freedom of religion (by supporting a certain "mainstream" religion), and taking away the ability of the citizens to protect their property against competing corporate interests.[/QUOTE]

?
 
[quote name='dtcarson']And most people *want* the government to "take care" of them or their families.
Public school systems.
Welfare.
Social Security.
Regardless of their reasons for origination, now they are 'yield control to the government' programs. I can't believe the number of people who are saying, "No, I don't want to have the choice to be able to control a small portion of my retirement money, you do it for me, Mr Government Man!"

And, yes, it is seen as a quick fix, ie, could be done in one term, just in time for reelection. Guards abusing prisoners? Close the prison.
Kids who play games killing people? Ban the games.
Kids shooting other kids? Ban the guns.[/QUOTE]

And most people should be executed in the streets. It's not coincidental.
 
[quote name='camoor']This is what it's come to. Noone expects the American Inquistion! :razz:

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=3517358[/QUOTE]

"This so called new religion is nothing but a pack of weird rituals and chants designed to take away the money of fools. Let us say the Lord's prayer 40 times, but first let's pass the collection plate." - Reverend Lovejoy from The Simpsons

(Just a quote from the show intended as a joke and not to offend.)
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Politicians in both parties don't understand and want to censor videogames.[/QUOTE]


The smartest thing you ever said.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']We should switch to the European game rating system which goes by recommended minimum age instead of a letter.

For example, instead of a "T" rating, a game would be rated "13+".

And GTA would have an "18+" rating instead of "M".


It would clear up the confusion a whole lot, and it wouldn't result in lumping all M games together like they are today, like Half-Life 2 could get a 16+ rating.[/QUOTE]

What confusion? They don't know what the word mature indicates and can't read the description of the content on the back? Not to mention the fact that for close to a year now the words "Mature 17+" is printed right above the rating on the front and back. Oh and don't forget the big signs that are usually displayed somewhere in the game store or section.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top