Hillary, GTA, and High School Football 1169
The LA Times is running a really worthwhile story discussing the recent attack on video games in congress. It talks about GTA, the decline in youth violence, and mentions that football actually encourages real aggression, causes real injuries, and is treated totally differently. It's worth a read. Unfortunately I'm fairly certain that very few U.S. Senators are listening over the sound of hype.
Yeah, but has he actually played GTA? (Score:5, Informative)
Worse if the game actually were as characterized, it wouldn't sell as many copies: way too difficult, not entertaining enough.
But the description sounds really good. "Training the wage slaves of the information age"
Re:true, sort of (Score:4, Informative)
Steve Johnson wrote both of those, and the book Everything Bad is Good for You. He's been in the news quite a bit lately.
Presidential tactic... (Score:2, Informative)
Now the scary stuff: Arnold Schwarzenegger is 6th on the list (16/1)
Re:Do-gooder (Score:4, Informative)
Interestingly enough, the most recent VG Cats [vgcats.com] deals with this topic, as does a recent Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com]. It's nice to see a funny spin on this continuing GTA and "videogames kill!" bullshit.
Re:The f'd up logic of it all. (Score:2, Informative)
All the uproar on Slashdot over this game pushed me to go d/l it off of Shareaza and see if some of the comments were hyperbole, or factually accurate. And yep! They were all factually accurate! Here is a list of the wonderful times I have had in GTA3 (the original mind you, not San Andreas):
But having simulated, virtual video game sex is apparently very evil in the USA.
Oh yes, I also frequently shoot counter-terrorist players in CounterStrike:Source who are controlled by Real Live People! right between the eyes with my high-powered long-range rifle, but again, simulated sex is very very bad for me.
And the game God Of War actually PROMOTES watching two women doin' it - but doesn't get in trouble for it. Go figure!
Oh wait, then there's pr0n on the Internet... oh who cares, the politician rhetoric will never end...
Re:Very Nice Article (Score:3, Informative)
I bet it would work. The problem is that our society is generally repressive by nature. As a culture, we don't like to admit these things exist. As a result, we end up making them worse by repressing them.
I generally agree with Hillary on the important issues. I think Bill Clinton was the best president since Kennedy. But freedom of speech, and by extension gaming is such a fundamental right as Americans. Take that away and you have nothing.
Also: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't GTA rated for adults? Why would any responsible parent allow children to play an adult rated game to begin with?
Re:Hillary (Score:1, Informative)
He voted for another version of the funding bill that had more regulations on how the money could be spent. He voted against the Bush-sponsored version of the bill because it didn't specify where the money would be going.
The issue was, Kerry and the Dems didn't want the bill to be a handout to coporate contractors on $500 hammers and the like. (At Halliburton, by the way, it's company policy to over-charge the government [google.com]) They wanted to make sure it was spent on things like body armor.
Re:Do-gooder (Score:1, Informative)
No he didn't, but I wouldn't expect a rabid Bush hater to know the difference between a concious, deliberate lie and simply being incorrect. Before the Iraq war all of the intelligence from multiple countries said Iraq had WMDs, Bush telling people they were there wasn't a lie, it was honestly repeating a fact no one knew was incorrect.
Clinton lied. He deliberately told everyone something that he knew to be untrue. That is a lie.
You can go back to your mindless Bush bashing now.
Re:Very Nice Article (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Very Nice Article (Score:4, Informative)
This is a very outdated idea from psychoanalysis [skepdic.com] that has leaked into the popular consciousness, but actual scientific evidence suggests otherwise. Freud observed that biological drives like hunger and thirst are temporarily diminished when they are satisfied, and he incorrectly assumed that all motivated behavior (including sex and aggression) worked the same way.
Think of it this way: If this were true, armies would be complete pussycats (because they would've gotten it all out of their systems in training), and pacifists would regularly go on murderous rampages.
Hilary is NOT the bad guy (or gal)! Thompson IS! (Score:2, Informative)
But no matter, as I intend to NOT discuss politics or anything of the like here, but speak as a student who has been studying the game industry in pursuit of a career there as a Creative Director.
What's a Creative Director you ask? This is the person who is considered the BRAINS of the game, the author of a book or director of a movie if you will! The game is considered this person's baby and when the credits role, this person is usually the first one listed. Right now, we have several different parties thrown in here for what's going on with this event, but the Creative Director is not one of them! So who is involved in all this:
The Game Makers:
Take-Two Interactive
Rockstar Games
The Political People:
Hilary Clinton
Jack Thompson
Leland Yee
The Video Game Lobbyists:
ESA (Entertainment Software Association)
ESRB (Entertainment Software Ratings Board)
IGDA (Independent Game Developers Association)
VSDA (Video Software Dealers Association)
IEMA (Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association)
Quite a few more people on the side of games than I bet most of the folks here expected! Not surprised though as they are usually very quiet in regards to their actions and rarely peak on the headlines, if in the news at all!
But they are there, and they have been challenging legislation left and right in regards to censorship and overly strict legislation on video games.
Hot Coffee is not the current fuss that has the attention of these groups.
The current fuss that's going on is the law in Illinois that requires state enforced labels on video games and places a large fine on stores that sell state-considered "Mature" games to minors. This law is slated to go into effect on the first of 2006, but that gives lots of time for the groups to challenge the law, and most likely win!
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?st ory=6018 [gamasutra.com]
Already similar laws have been overturned in Washington State, Indiana, and Missouri. The laws have been marked as "Unconstitutional" and violate first amendment rights. Rightly so, since treating video games different from movies, books, comics, and television is a major hypocrisy. So why video games? Because it's the newest media to earn the ire of the government because of its "new-ness" and the lack of knowledge held by people in power.
That's not to say that there are no politicians on the side of video games. Quite a few listen to the ESA, ESRB, and take measures as necessary.
Hilary Clinton is NOT an avid anti-video game fanatic like Jack Thompson is. One look at her website, and you can see that she focuses on lots of topics regarding human well-being, and does a lot for her New York constituents. But then what DID she say regarding the video game business then?
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details. cfm?id=240603&& [senate.gov]
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details. cfm?id=241138&& [senate.gov]
And that's all she wrote! The fact that this is ALL she has to say on the matter is actually COMFORTING to me as a gamer! She does NOT claim that the ESRB is a faulty institution, and applauds it for taking action on GTA:SA.
I AGREE with the ESRB with their ratin
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Do-gooder (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Very Nice Article (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. You lose all your weapons and you have to start your mission over. Just like jail, you lose time. It's a pain in the ass to get caught by the cops in that game and you work your ass off to avoid it.
There's no consequence worse in a video game than time lost.
Re:Do-gooder (Score:5, Informative)
Have you actually read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged? "Fuck everyone else, I got mine" doesn't really come anywhere near her philosophy. It was more like, "Everyone being self-serving ultimately leads to the greatest good, because we only get what we want by producing for others." Unless you're self-sufficient, and that's basically no one now, you get what you want through trade. The surest way to get what you want and need is to aggressively pursue your self-interest. Since people spending time working hard are far more productive than people who spend their time niggling over what society "owes" them, the net sum of productivity is drastically higher and society as a whole benefits. Her protagonists are generous. Howard Roark uses his talents to build incredibly cheap, effective, quality low-income housing; Hank Reardon is generous with his relatives. But in the former case, Roark's work is perverted by meddlers crusading for "more, more", refusing to accept his work as it is, wrecking the project and taking things back to where they were: a project they can't afford, a project of lesser utility, and ultimately a failure. And Reardon's relatives hound him relentlessly, yammering about his social duties. He's creating a bold new railway system enabling massive increases in transportation efficiency and leading to the employ of thousands, but they ride him about his greed and his uncaring until he finally throws them out. But both of them start working for the greater good. Rand's lesson isn't that generosity or charity is bad; it's that when honest generosity and charity cross with greed and corruption, such virtues are likely to be perverted. Roark's housing project and Reardon's family are just two examples of people doing good who had their good deeds demolished by unproductive self-righteous busybodies.
Rand's characters and stories are meant to be larger than life and iconoclastic. They have heroic characters with heroic talents. But they illustrate the nature of man astutely quite often.
Now there may well be a minority of people whom she does describe. But by and large, she's off the mark by a mile. The typical do-gooder isn't doing somethign because it makes him feel good- he's doing it because he thinks he's doing the right thing. He beleives it 100%. Its like religious zealots who try to convert everyone- they believe they are saving your soul. Assuming that they aren't what they claim to be wil cause you to entirely mispredict them.
That depends on the type of do-gooding. For people who are following Hillary's "for the children" crusade against violence and sex in video games, it falls into a combination of:
(1) People too lazy to take care of their own children and think the government should protect them from everything
(2) People who are so horrified by sexual content of any kind that they will try to ban anything, anywhere, any time. They've been fighting for laws to keep alcohol out of stores, pasties on nipples at tittie bars, and making it illegal to show porn without getting a credit card first. In other words, they're people with a strong feeling of moral superiority; or a terrible fear of certain vices which manifests as moral superiority.
(3) Demoagogues like Hillary, or GWB & Karl Rove. They're there to capitalize on this mass of uncritical thought and feeling, to channel it into action. "Sexual content in video games! To arms!"; let's not stop and actually think about what we're crusading for or against. It's a bit like GWB and his "Wherever people stand for liberty, we stand with you
Re:Do-gooder (Score:2, Informative)
People always act in their own PERCIEVED self interest. The trick is to make that perception complete enough to appreciate all facets of one's TRUE self interest.
Rand was an egomaniacal twit, but I do agree with her on this point.
Re:Do-gooder (Score:2, Informative)
By the way, what's so "extremist" about wanting to have the freedom to run your own life? Libertarians aren't the type of people that will force your to live a certain way, they leave that choice up to you...aren't you adult enough to make your own decisions?
Re:Do-gooder (Score:2, Informative)
It's a simple statement, yes, but its nuances are infinite. I think you're attempting to oversimplify my axiom.
Re:Rockstar Defrauded the ESRB (Score:2, Informative)
That would be great if those were the terms of the ESRB contract. But those are not the terms. You must disclose everything on the disk, accessible or not. Everybody who writes games that get ESRB rated knows this, or at least they should. I know it gets repeated to me a million times when the ship date comes around.
And remember that an ESRB rating is voluntary. Rockstar wasn't forced into this situation. They chose it. Idiots.
Re:Do-gooder (Score:2, Informative)
* http://www.cato.org/ [cato.org]
* http://www.reformthelp.org/ [reformthelp.org]
* http://www.lp.org/ [lp.org]
* http://www.theadvocates.org/ [theadvocates.org]
There's also some good info on Libertarians on WiKiPedia. Though sometimes divided we support drug reform, welfare reform, social security reform, minimal government and above all else personal liberty. We're growing stronger each and every year.
Re:I had a weird thought the other day (Score:2, Informative)
If it came to a situation where we, the citizens, would need to form an insurgency against our own government, having guns would at least allow us the means to begin the process of overthrowing the government. Look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, or even the current situation in Iraq - advanced weaponry doesn't make you unbeatable. Sometimes small arms, organization, and ideology will do the trick.