Slashdot Mirror
Hillary, GTA, and High School Football
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.
Of course, I admit that there's one charge against video games that is a slam dunk. Kids don't get physical exercise when they play a video game, and indeed the rise in obesity among younger people is a serious issue. But, of course, you don't get exercise from doing homework either.
heh, sure, those kids are really spending all that time doing homework and not nearly as much as becoming more aggressive playing after-school sports or killing, fucking, and carjacking!
Down with homework and more carjacking! Oh wait.
The most amazing thing about this is that Hillary can get so many people up-in-arms and pissed off about a stupid fucking video game and no one else can mobilize parents to "protect their children" from real harms that go virtually unnoticed in the political arena.
Someone really needs to link serious environmental issues to religion-based morality. Maybe then people will get mobilized. Afterall, it seems to be quite the rage recently...
The bigger problem is, I believe, that they don't hear anything but the hype. Most politicians don't troll Slashdot or gaming sites. They have enough to do with meetings, looking at bills, more meetings, campaigning, photo ops, and the rest.
I wrote a small piece on this not too long ago that talked about this issue. It's not just that Senator Clinton is believing the hype - that's all she's probably hearing! Who in the gaming community is really going to her and the other politicians who discuss the issue?
Where's the Hollywood style lobbyists from the gaming industry? Isn't this what the ESRB and other gaming organizations should be doing - going to politicians and explaining how an R rating is the same as an M rating, how they're working with stores to keep M rated games out of the hands of minors (and if they aren't, then they damn well better be before Washington does it for them), why the "Hot Coffee" mod was never meant to be played and discovered by people voluntarily choosing to play the nude scene (and if they are minors, do you really think they can't get nude people easier than installing a mod in a $50 PC game?).
Yeah, I'm pissed at Ms. Clinton and Thomson and all of the ilk who "don't get it" - but I don't entirely blame them, because odds are there are few people who have really taken the time to explain it to all of them. (Well, except for Thomson - in my opinion, he's just a money grubbing lawyer now using nudity-in-games claims to line his pocket).
Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Of course, I admit that there's one charge against video games that is a slam dunk. Kids don't get physical exercise when they play a video game
What of Dance Dance Revolution and its various clones?
Speaking as an obese man, if that isn't physical exercise, I don't know what is.
There is a difference between being willing to do something and wanting to do something. The choice to "Shoot someone or Die" is vary different from "Actuality stealing a car vs. Pretending to steel a car." I have no problem with killing someone with an adequate reason, but I have no desire to go out and shoot someone for the fun of it.
I have been close to death before in real life, but honestly the adrenalin rush from playing video games is a much better high. They are designed to get your adrenalin pumping and they are much better at it than say skydiving. Skydiving may be really fun but it's not fun for vary long and you spend a lot of time and money waiting to have fun. It's the same reason why I don't really go to amusement parks they are fun but video games are much more fun.
I'm fairly certain that very few US Senators are listening over the sound of hype.
You have a niave view of Senators. They understand the silliness and meaningless of what they are saying, probably better than most people around here. What you fail to understand is that media events like this are all about getting face time on TV. Free face time on TV is more highly prized than nearly anything else. The explicit lyrics crusade of the 80s, the assault weapons crusade of the 90s, the current video game violence crusade, all were merely PR stunts that accomplished very little.
Do-Gooder psych is more pathological than that, and it's not limited to Sen. Clinton. Nor is it limited to her party. But it usually starts off with something "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" and metastasizes from there.
Spend enough time behind the counter at the welfare office "helping the less fortunate", or enough time behind the security barricades of TSA "keeping the Homeland secure" and eventually...
Rand's a bit of a nut, and her epistemology may be from somewhere out past Zeta Reticuli, but I think she nailed the psychology of the compulsive do-gooder dead on. To hell with everybody, as long as you're feeling virtuous about it.
I'm really surprised we haven't heard anything from Joe Lieberman. After all his pontificating after Columbine and the hearings on how video games and Marilyn Manson were responsible, I'm surprised he hasn't decided to opine on the subject.
That's the problem with American politics in a nutshell. In the days of my youth, the party affiliations were clear: the GOP wanted to control my sex life, and the Dems wanted to control my wallet. Everyone wanted a "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" party (i.e., the smallest possible government), but voted on whether money or pornography was more important to them. At least it made some sort of sense.
Now there is no "small government" party, it seems. They both want to meddle and they both want your money (OK, technically, today's GOP just wants to spend your money, they don't actually bother to collect it first, but that's a minor quibble). How did America become a choice between two nanny-state parties? Do we have to wait for all the Boomers to die before we can get back to small government?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
...ever since I took up a martial art.
There are plenty of physical and mental health benefits involved in studying a martial art, but there is the undeniable fact that I am much more prone to violence now.
I'll walk into so many situations with a belief that I can overpower a problem with brute strength or with a precision strike to a body part, whether it makes sense or not. I have the hammer so everything looks like a nail.
I don't think I act on these urges, but I'm sure others might disagree.
Video games never encouraged this kind of behavior in me since video game problem solving is entirely confined within your head.
In football "real aggression" is taught. It's also taught that for aggression to be usefull, it needs to be controlled and directed and timely.
Hitting after the whistle incurs a penalty. Hitting the wrong way incurs a penalty. Hitting the wrong guy let's someone gain yards or score. Going outside the boundaries hurts not only you, but your team.
Yes, football is a very aggressive game. But at the end of the game, you're going to go party, and often with members of the other team (unless they're your arch-rivals but even at the end of the season you'll be laughing with those guys over the last game).
All of which are valuable real life lessons. There's a place and a time in real life for aggressive action (not necessarily physical, but sometimes), but if it's not controlled, you'll quickly find yourself on the wrong end of the moral (and often legal) line.
Mostly what football teaches, though, is that you can push past whatever limitations you percieve given the dedication and time.
I'm not sure that GTA has similarly positive lessons to be learned from it. GTA has the advantage that the aggression is pretend, but has, from what I've seen, no corresponding lessons about control and responsibility to teach.
You're close, but off. WE wanted (the geeky) socially liberal, fiscally conservative. But we're young, male, intellectuals (mostly). Think about those who aren't. Think about the soccer moms. They're not just looking out for themselves, they're looking out for their kids, and are loaded up with defensive instincts. Think of all the people who are being pushed around by fearmongering news.
That's who the parties cater to now. Those who are afraid. That's what "Family Values" is all about - fear. Fear of the unkown, the expansion of things you don't like, fear of foreign influences on your life, fear of a million artificial ghosts who want to eat your kids. Look at the SUVs, the PTAs, the condo associations, etc. All fueld by terrified busybodies.
Of course, we're young and invincible, in a field that reaffirms our own mental godhood, so we don't feel that fear as much.
Parents are being trained to fear every second that their kids are away - of bad influences, of paedophiles, of another kid going nuts and killing them. Once fear takes hold, higher principles like freedom and democracy go out the window.
The unfortunate, silent fact is that Americans _want_ a nanny state. Not the '60s liberal nanny-state, where nanny feeds you and clothes you, but a nanny-state that just tells you what not to do, but doesn't actually care for you.
On the minus side, Football, like a lot of sports, can teach you to push the limits and try to cheat, or bend the rules unfairly, or hide your fouls from refs. It can also make you feel "better" than other people because you are the center of attention and can do things other people can't. This can make you feel arrogant and want to flaunt the rules.
But then again, it's all how you teach the game. I.E. it's the parents, coaches, teachers, and mentors you deal with that teach you to be an ass, not games.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
"How did America become a choice between two nanny-state parties?"
Because when we are on the recieving end of government spending we feel like its free. We sell our freedom for "free" government services.
Become active in your local school districts don't accept the use of federal funds in your schools. Become more active in other local governments and refuse federal funding to build local roads, stimulate local economies, etc. Refusing to accept federal funds will make it much easier to get votes to curtail federal spending. When there is less money in government it will less attractive to empire-building bureaucrats and corrupt politicians.
(Note: This is not easy. Nothing that takes forethought and self-control is easy.)
IMO all the problems with national politics come directly from apathy in local (and personal) matters. (ie. Why are we surprised by government debt when consumer debt is so high? Why are we surprised with corruption in Congress when we allow - or participate in - corruption in our neighborhood association politics? Why are we surprised at cheating CEOs when we steal office supplies and give - or recieve - only token punishments for cheating in school?)
-----
This in an incomplete thought, and is not meant to fully represent the complexity of the many problems that exist in government, but I think that it addresses important cores of those problems.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
"I was wondering this same thing. Could this be a conceivable conclusion? Could it be possible that kids these days are actually getting their adrenaline fix from these games instead of causing real-life crimes (or vandalism)?"
Possible. Something else to consider, though: GTA doesn't just allow you to commit vandalism, it also deals you consequences for your actions. Run over pedestrians, police chase you. I'll tell you something, once you've gained three stars in that game, the Police turn into real bastards. They keep coming, they never give up, and your chances of survival have more to do with luck than skill. I can imagine kids saying "Well, that was fun, but man I never wanna piss off the cops."
It's hard to say, really. My basis for this suggestion is that in playing GTA I've become quite allergic to attacking 'innocents' in the game. It's a lot easier to play when you don't have cops trying to drive up your butt. Compare this to Crazy Taxi. I never made any effort to avoid pedestrians in that game because they'd instantly jump out of the way. If you ask me, that's far worse than GTA. You'd think that people would understand that "Don't do that." doesn't have near the effect that "Don't do that BECAUSE..." does. GTA's not bad at illustrating the consequences.
"Derp de derp."
Many people are ruled by their fears, but that is nothing new. People have been playing on each other's fears as far back as recorded history goes.
Of course "soccer moms" are defensive about their kids, it's part of their responsibility as a parent. The problem is when this is taken to the extreme, and kids are actually denied the experiences required to grow up. Many people do buy into the fear mongering that goes on in the media, but most people (that I know anyway) do not buy into the fear constantly mentality.
The best description I ever heard for the job of a parent was to raise them so that they can SUCCESSSFULLY leave. I have kids and I worry about them, but I do not buy into the fear mentality. I do, however, use common sense with my kids. I watch them, keep an eye on what they are absorbing through the TV, video games, movies, etc. and generally keep them away from life's major potholes. I won't let my children play any video game that I haven't looked into myself. The government, in my opinion, has done it's job with the rating system (assuming they are the ones requiring the ratings), the rest is on the PARENT. Kids will have influences in their lives whether their parents like it or not, our job as parents is to teach them right from wrong so that they can resist bad influences on their own, and to intervene when they aren't doing what they know is right.
Grossman's book suffers from very poor battlefield analysis. For example, he consistently overlooks the most obvious reason for not shooting at the enemy: fire draws return fire. Not shooting is often motivated by a simple desire for self-preservation.
While there may be some value to Grossman's work, his arguments are not well supported by the evidence he provides.
Honesty. Loyalty. Kindness. Laughter. Generosity. Magic!
I wholeheartedly agree. Things need to change. Now is the opportunity with over 200,000 people that identify themselves as libertarian, and approximately 20,000 that are members of the Libertarian Party (dues paying). Of the 20,000 registered members, a much more vocal minority has swayed party platform and political tactics to the detriment of a cause many of us (all party affiliations) believe in, smaller government.
http://www.reformthelp.org/home/intro/
Check out this link. I have hope. With support, the opportunity to reform the LP into an effective party is a real possibility.
I work for a large computer game company (not Take-Two), and the ESRB rating agreement states that you must disclose all content on the disk, whether it is accessible or not. This is made very very clear to us at work: we must report all cheats and easter eggs, and must remove all unused content from the disk. You're not allowed to put a movie file on the disk and not have it considered for the rating, even if you can't get to it from the game. In this case, it wasn't even seperate from the game like a movie file, but intergral to the game itself.
To this day, Rockstar claims that they had nothing to do with the porn content, which doesn't even pass the laugh test. But they keep saying it because admitting otherwise would open them up to a fraud suit from the ESRB.
Back when the 2nd Amendment was penned, times were interesting - if a well-armed militia meant a well-armed citizenry, what that did was put the citizens and government military on equal footing. To my knowledge, there wasn't much differentiation with respect to the weapons used by the military and those used by citizens. If the citizens had to defend themselves against a goverment that had spun out of control, they could- and it would be a fair fight.
Contrast this with the conditions we have today...we still have the 2nd Amendment, but the difference between what the government has at its disposal, and what the citizens are allowed to have, makes me wonder if it would even be *possible* to defend against such an occurrance.