Slashdot Mirror
Second Version of CA Games Bill Derided
A second version of the bill proposed last year by California Assemblyman Leland Yee is going before that political body. In response, the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association is slamming the decision to bring up the bill again. From the article: "IEMA president Hal Halpin accused ... Yee of 'me-too politics in a vain effort for local politicians to garner some perceived moral high ground when clearly there is none to be had.'"
With words like "derided" and "slamming," you'd think that there was some kind of legislative orgy going on here.
It should be the parent's choice wether or not their kid goes out to buy violent video games.
No one is taking choice away from the parents. Parents can still allow their children access to these video games.
How is this different, than say, preventing children from seeing a rated R movie without their parent?
Besides, if a kid wants to play a video game, they're gonna play it. At a friend's house or whatever.
And hey, if a kid wants to drink alcohol, he's gonna drink it, so let's legalize it for minors.
They keep game ratings, it's illegal to sell, but not illegal to play underage. So what difference does it make?
The difference is it takes a parent to make that game available to the child, so the parent is better able to enforce their decisions.
Gotta wonder if Jack Thompson has his greedy claws in this. He's almost singlehandedly made shifting the blame for violence among youth to video games an art form. What kind of society do we live in when a judge won't tell a lawyer to basically shut the hell up for arguing that a video game can cause insanity? I am desensitized to violence, very much so even, yet I recognize that murder is clearly wrong and still take a moral position against it and for its consistent and tough punishment. Desensitizing kids to violence does not lead the vast majority of them to violence, but when was the last time in America the minority were held responsible for doing wrong?
I agree though that violent games should be by default kept out of kids' hands, since parents won't do their jobs anymore. I'm fucking sick of these whiny parents who say they have no time to watch their kids. I have known families making less than $25,000 a year that work hard and that actually have a parent home to watch their kids and take care of them. It's called sacrificing, it means that you can't have it all, it means you have to actually prioritize and if your kids don't come before yourself then don't have them and get a cat. Yes, get a cat because cats are the only pets that tend to remain emotionally functional and happy when left alone 90% of the time. Such people couldn't even handle a dog well.
Here's an even better legal idea, though. Let's make the parents liable for what their kids do with those games. Why aren't Harris and Klebold's parents in prison for not taking the time to notice that their kids were storing pipe bombs in their rooms and garage? Oh look at our little boy, ain't his stockpile of explosives just swell? Then these parents turn around and want sympathy points because they have to "balance a career and a family." You know what, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You aren't balancing a family, you are keeping pets and calling them children and you wonder why they turn into nutcases when they get picked on at school. They have no foundation at home to rely on in the face of adversity.
It doesn't even end there. One of my friends used to be a manager at KB Toys. I can't count the number of times both of us wanted to grab a lot of those kids by the seat of the pants and literally throw them face first out of the store for being roudy little brats that caused the workers no end of grief. All because the parents, who are often there, can't be bothered to tell their kid to stop being a brat or they'll regret the consequences. Spare the spoiling and apply the rod copiously and maybe your kids will behave. You don't negotiate with the little brats, you tell them what is what and make them realize that they are accountable for what they do.
What pisses me off about all of this is that so much crime committed by middle and upper class kids is because of this. One of my friends told me just the other night that a kid who used to play with her little sister just got arrested for armed robbery. His mother always bribed him into behaving well, never disciplined him, even when he was a real monster. Never at any time did his parents lay down the law with him and make sure that he knew that he was well within the same rules as everyone else in society and that there are painful consequences for breaking the rules. The result? In his mind, it's ok for him to go to a store with a friend and pull a gun on two clerks and rob the store.
If parents would do their jobs then a lot of these things would never happen. The reason that I could put up with terribly abusive academic environments and why I never identified with violent games is that my parents were actually there for me. As importantly, I rarely got away with anything. From the time I was 2 years old I knew the rules applied to me and my parents wouldn't hesitate to remind me that I am not special, that if I do bad, I have to be punished.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
How is this different, than say, preventing children from seeing a rated R movie without their parent?
Simple, there is nothing in law that mandates that theaters keeps kids out. The MPAA's rating system, and near universal enforcement of age restrictions is all volutary. source Actually, its not too dissimilar to what we are seeing happen today with video games. With legislative bodies threatening legislation, the MPAA adopted the rating system volutarally. The gaming industry is moving that way, and will get there, the last thing we need is yet another nanny-state law to create problems for legitimate purchasers.
And hey, if a kid wants to drink alcohol, he's gonna drink it, so let's legalize it for minors.
Yes, please, maybe then we might be able to emulate the success of Germany and other countries where underage binge drinking isn't a widespread problem. But them, it's better to have this forbidden fruit out there which teenages will get a hold of and will over indulge in.
The difference is it takes a parent to make that game available to the child, so the parent is better able to enforce their decisions.
These games cost upwards of $50, how are they getting a hold of them in the first place? Second, why aren't the parents paying a little bit of attention to what their kids are doing? Yes, the kids are going to manage to hide some stuff from their parents, but honestly, a mildly involved parent is going to notice this stuff. Why not, instead of shirking responsibilities, the parents actually spend time with their kids and pay attention to what the kids are doing?
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.