Slashdot Mirror
Senator Clinton Slams GTA
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.
You think killing prostitutes are bad? Wait until you see soldiers team-killing each other in CounterStrike.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
... but did you ever notice that not a single politician slams Thief?
Trolling is a art,
It is wrong to murder prostitutes after you have sex with them.
Unless they charge more than $50, then its ok.
Imagine that... Senator Clinton, the woman who stood by her morally correct husband while at the top of the US government who supported his second in command's wife's desire to mark "inappropriate" music as such, supporting "proper" moral behavior for the inhabitants of this "free" country.
"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.
I know of some books that suggest similar things! Kids could read it then do it! Ban all forms of seeing while we are at it!!
If your kid has a problem defining fantasy vs reality, video games are the least of his concern...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
if the government Senator Clinton represents didn't use violence every day to solve it's problems. This is quite a bit bigger problem than the extremely questionable link that video games have with real world violence. I realize that the government wants to maintain a monopoly on violence, but this seems to be taking it a bit too far.
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.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Hilary Clinton... used the word 'diss' in a sentence? Hilary Clinton?!?...
Isn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse???!?!
Are we sure it wasn't George Clinton?....
Is Hilary Clinton trying to swell the ranks of the Young Republicans? Whatever happened to Democrats sticking up for things like civil liberties? When do I get my Deomocrat party back from the corps and self righteous? Yet another disillusioned Democrat that desperatelhy want a middle of the road party to balance things out in this country of mine.
I was murdering prostitutes WAY before GTA came out.
Your husband (the most powerful person in the world at the time) got a blowjob from an ugly intern, he blew his wad on her dress and defouled a fine cigar. And then lied about it on national tv.
What did our children learn from that experience.... Other than women that are with powerful men have to put up with such nonsense.
It doesn't make you kill prostitutes. Just something you are free to do, as in real life. I choose not to in SA, for various reasons.
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!
This may be counter to most of the belief's here, but I think that with games such as GTA there is an underlying issue of responsibility. While I am not blaming the game company for what they have produced, I certainly do think that games such as GTA should not be played by kids. Simply telling parents to not allow their children to play really isn't enough and doesn't get to the core of the issue. What responsibility do game producers have for content that is likely to end up being played by kids? How about the responsibility of parents? And the responibility of your kid's friend's parents? ('cause just because you don't allow it in your house, doesn't mean that Billy doesn't have it.) I think there needs to be more discussion along these points and less finger pointing of who's to blame.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
The key part of the sound bite:
"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.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
"She's right and actually has a solution to lessening violence, but we want our video games!"
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.
Ban the bible, lest the citizens learn to stone rapists, murders, and maybe even the politicians to death.
Legally enforcing those ESRB ratings seems like the obvious choice to please both sides.
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).
-----
jonathan barket
At 18, kids are being propositioned by prostitutes in American cities. Somehow I think that if they can handle that [and there's no great outcry from the right about that!] they can certainly handle a video game.
Completely out of context.
... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Context:
"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.
"Many of you are well enough off that
Is the game terrible? Yes Is the game fun? Yes Should the government be telling creative people what they can and can not develop? No This goes hand in hand with freedom of speech. The core issue lies in morality (lack thereof) and parents who just don't care. Let capitolism determine what will be produced.
The Bible doesn't command that anyone except for Jews over the age of 2,000 do any of those things.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Kids don't grow up to become prostitute-murdering psychopaths because they played a videogame that "taught them it was cool."
But my mom said I could be whatever I wanted when I grew up!
Look here
:
The best quotes
"Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993. "
"Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993."
The most amusing thing is Doom was released at the peak in 1993. Perhaps people are taking their frustations out in violent video games instead of real life?
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
First off, this game isn't free, it's for profit. It's simply an escallation of a genre of game which probably are the merger of FPS, 1on1 combat and racing with a little RPG sprinkled over it to give it some place to go. What's probably a good exercise is trying to guess what the next iteration will be like.
It really is pretty sorry when you realize you don't mind sitting at a screen and wiping out a bunch of lives. The thing of it is, you never realized yourself becoming less sensitive about life.
When I came out of cancer treatment, something I wouldn't wish on anyone, I experienced a twinge at watching the Deathstar blow apart in Star Wars. You know that thing is full of people, many would not actually have been evil. Yet that's OK because it's fiction and they were serving the Empire, right?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I don't see how playing GTA is any worse than enjoying an episode of The Sopranos.
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.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
...and which books would those be? Exactly which great works of literature talk about what a great idea it is to have sex with a prostitute and then kill her?
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-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
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.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Perhaps, Senator Clinton, this is what comes of trying to get the "village" to raise a child.
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).
It's pretty nice in my party. We aren't beholden to anybody, and we only follow what we believe.
:)
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*
of course it takes a village to properly raise a child. do you somehow think that the child's entire world experience is controlled by their parents?
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.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
When do I get my Deomocrat party back
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.
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...
The problem is senator Clinton assumes that video games and children go hand in hand. This is certainly not the case. She doesn't understand that there are video games (like GTA) that are not designed for children. Adults and video games are not mutually exclusive.
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 ratings the same way stores and theatres honour the MPAA rating system.
Redistribution of wealth is the whole point of taxation.
Not really. The whole point of taxation is to fund projects where the public gain exceeds the public cost, but the private cost exceeds the private gain. In other words, those things which no individual will do, but which benefit the public. Or, in other words, a hell of a lot less than any government is doing today.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
It doesn't even endore it, in fact, it is advertised as a work of fiction, entertainment, not the divine word by which to live your life, as the Bible is.
& location=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2FwireSt ory%3Fid%3D621347).
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)?
"My brother would never let his daughter play a game like Grand Theft Auto."
I let my 9 year old daughter play it, guess what she did?
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!!"
Maybe this can be taken as one of the "its a tool and depends on how you use it" arguements?
Not everything is inherently bad or evil...
[Hillary Clinton] wants a $90 million investigation to be launched
Who are they paying with this money? Do you really need $90million worth of research on this topic? Classrooms are overcrowded, people are going hungry, teachers are underpaid... the deficit is going up...
Isn't there something more important to go after than this? This is EXACTLY what Bush did during the election by making gay marriage the issue of the election instead of the economy...
All she's doing is grandstanding to get elected by the rightwing while calling herself a leftwing democrat.
Is Jon Stewart any less qualified than George W. Bush was when he ran?
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.
Is Jon Stewart any less qualified than George W. Bush was when he ran?
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.
Find coupons in Greeley
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Do you think (as a staunch Democrat) that I like this? Do you think I like having to settle for somebody center-left/centrist/center-right? Hell no. But the reality of current demographics and the Electoral College is such that I don't foresee any leftist Democrats being elected in the next decade or so
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.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Hillary believes it's ok for a teenage girl to have the right to have an abortion without parental consent, but she can't play a video game with simulated sex and violence.
Vote for Pedro