Slashdot Mirror
National Review Defends Gaming
The National Review has a piece up entitled National Born Regulators, in which they lay out the problems with legislator decision-making processes when discussing videogames, and lay to rest some of the most common misconceptions around gaming. From the article: "Those games are the exception to the rule. The vast majority of video games sold each year do not contain intense violence or sexual themes. The Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB), the video-game industry's self-regulatory labeling body, places ratings and numerous content descriptors on almost every game sold in America today. These ratings and descriptors are remarkably detailed and displayed prominently on all game cartons, making them easy for parents to evaluate."
I submitted this link a few days ago and it got declined. Bummer. Glad Zonk found it, though! It's a good article.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Gosh! You mean...read the labels? On the games our children play? ..But...but...that sounds scarily like Parental Responsibility! Nonono...we need laws to deal with this. The government should be looking after our children!
Ok, ok...couldn't resist. But is is refeshing to see a little common sense and objectivity for a change. Politicians are just far to eager to legislate and jump on the latest turbo-charged bandwagon these days. On both sides of the Atlantic...
"...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
It gets harder and harder to defend these people every year as they shift away from free market economics and individual self-determination and towards more big-government nanny-state big brotherism. If only the Democrats had the guts to step in and fill the void instead of likewise pandering to its base...
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
So does the lack of comments to this story indicate that the average slashdotter's head am explode by conservatives defending videogames, while Hillary Clinton bags on them?
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
A common theme in politics today seems to be that a loud minority of people want the US Government to act as a safety net for poor parenting. Honestly, if you bought your 12-year-old a copy of GTA San Andreas, it's not Rockstar's fault, it's not the US Government's fault, it's not the store's fault, it's yours, because you made a conscious decision to buy your kid that game when the title and the carton art tell the whole story. It's not as if the violent and sexually themed games are hiding among more "wholesome" games and trying to fool parents. They're clearly labelled and it's no one's responsibility but the parents' to take a proactive role in choosing the material to which their children are exposed.
It's not unusual for people to want to pass of their responsibilities to others. Parents are no different.
:(
Just because someone has responsibilities, does not make them responsible in any fashion.
Sad but true
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
This just in! Anti-regulatory group against regulation! Film at 11!
It is indeed truly astounding to see the number of parents that want to blame their shitty parenting on someone else. That is today's fad, Pass the buck. I'm glad a publication of ANY type is saying it too. Parents are the fault in the rating system, not the ratings. Parents are how kids are getting violent games. Here's a hint, if you wnat to avoid ultra violent games... buy a gamecube and shut up. A big "w00t" out to the mag, Let the people know they have to be responsible for thier parenting actions.
He whom you called four-eyes yesterday, you call Sir tomorrow.
Some days you just have to sit back and dream because reality is far too confusing. Conservatives actually espousing their correct value set concerning government regulation? Democrats (Hillary and cohorts) trying to "save the children" with mindless studies that egrediously waste tax payer money that could go to something like education?
Some days you just wish for a party that would be the proponents of a moderate and fiscally responsible social safety net and completely disregard this moral safety net idiocy. A long shot, I know. But since when did the government have the right or even the ability to make subjective judgements about morality? Religious people should be up in arms that the government is interfering with their baliwack (instead of just muddying up religion with politics). Church groups should be pounding the street protesting the latest GTA, not trying to get politicians to deal with it. I can ignore street protests...laws are a little harder.
I am and always will be a stereotype, because who in their right mind prefers mono?
The NRO is shamelessly **republican** and Thierier is more of a libertarian than a republican or conservative. Among old-style conservatives and libertarians, they are largely considered to be the whores of the national right wing media.
For those interested, the author of this piece is also an occassional contributor to the Tech Liberation Front (www.techliberation.com). He's one of the few associated with the PFF who shows a tendency toward common sense.
If you think our government is a "wankfest," it's probably none of your business.
The Raw Story: After Democrats and Republicans sparred over the amount of time allotted to debate and scheduled for the vote, Senator Russ Feingold introduced a resolution to censure President George W. Bush for violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act._ resolution_to_censure_President_0313.html
http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Feingold_introduces
Yeah, the parents of the 37-year-old want to make sure nothing untoward happens in their basement.
Six score characters.
Brevity being wit's soul
I have enough space.
Okay, karma be damed for this particular instance!
Traditionally, Republicans (in the modern sense) who have nothing to worry about with respect to being elected (aka. the general populous) generally believe in less government and more personal responsibility. That's why anti-gaming laws are generally considered to be an afront to what the standard, non-politician Republican believes. Such laws are nothing more than bigger government usurping parental responsibility.
I really wish that people like you would stop with the mentality that the clueless politicians inside of the Washington beltway are 100% representative of the people who put them into office. They're not. American politics has degraded to the election of the lesser of the available evils, and very few people fully agree 100% with the people that they elect. More often than not, people are not voting for their candidate but instead voting against the other candidate. Very sad, but true.
What's more, if you really think that Washington Democrats will bring "sanity" to the U.S. government, that shows how completely f**king clueless you really are about modern, American politics. Washington Democrats (notice how I'm focusing on those inside the Beltway by not generally speaking about the populous) have traditionally attempted to usurp personal responsibility in the way of "the government knows what's better for you than you do" mentality on issues that are centered in bleeding-heart compassion as opposed to theologoical morality. (See various socialist/entitlement laws that have been signed or at least submitted into the House and Senate in the past few decades.) But whether it's bleeding-heart compassion (typically left-wing) or theological morality (typically right-wing), any law based on such is done so in order to appease constituents, not to enhance the betterment of the country, and should be opposed.
That being said, you are correct in the sense that anti-gaming laws are also pounced upon by the various moralists in the Republican fringe who are putting their personal morals ahead of the traditional Republican values of smaller government. Sadly, better morals and/or protecting the children has become a pathetic excuse for both parties to pass whatever law they want, because it's easy to vilify opponents as being against children for no reason except that you can -- just as easily as it is to vilify an opposing party about not bringing "fucking balance" for no reason except that you can.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Of course National Review writers support gaming. Especially those war games. Playing War games allows the National Review writers to feel like real warriors and patriots. Then they write their articles about supporting a war that they would never think of serving in themselves. That's why they're called the 101st Fighting Keyboardists by some and chickenhawks by others. War: its on the computer or in the imaginary land of neo-con theory. No blood, no fear, no death. Just democracy in the Middle East. While some members of the old guard at the National Review, like William F. Buckley, Jr. have finally been forced to admit that Iraq has been a disaster for American and its interests, the Fighting Keyboardists soldier on in their brave battle. Thank God that there are some true patriots left who are willing to risk carpal tunnel syndrome in the service of their country.
Since I don't have any mod points to give you the troll smackdown that you deserve, I'll just tell you what an idiot you look like with useless rants like that.
That was one of the few PERFECT and error-free posts I've seen on here :)
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!