Slashdot Mirror
Gaming Politics To Watch Today
As you go to the polls today, alongside more serious issue be sure to think of how politics affects the gaming world. GamePolitics has a rundown of politicians associated with gaming (in either a good or bad way) who are up for re-election today. From the article: "Hillary Clinton (D-NY): sponsor of the Family Entertainment Protection Act (FEPA). Joe Lieberman (I-CT): his criticism of game violence in the mid-1990's led directly to the formation of the ESRB. Rick Santorum (R-PA): backs Hillary's game initiatives, but also backs the ESRB. George Allen (R-VA): backs the ESRB rating system. Candidate Mike McGavick (R-WA): trying to unseat Democrat Maria Cantwell; he believes the entertainment industry will not regulate itself and wants to explore legislative solutions."
And if the private sector does not do a good job at self-regulation (and even sometimes when it does!), the unfortunate result is government's ham-fisted regulation that is always worse. So three cheers for the ESRB?
Are you kidding me? Even if you're a hardcore gamer, games should be the LAST thing you consider as you vote for someone for public office. This article is ridiculous.
Looks like Slashdot just violated the US's campaign finance laws through its promotion or opposition of certain canditates within 30 days of an election, which amounts to an in-kind contribution.
Okay, okay, if it's not illegal yet, it soon will be.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
I can think of at least 20 more important issues that would decide how I would vote today before video games comes into play. The idea that anybody would elect anybody based on that stance is asinine and immature.
The ESRB is a government and censorship matter when its ratings are used as part of censorship laws.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Fox News? Is that you?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
This is pretty informative. It could have been useful if it was posted yesterday so people could have had time to read it before voting.
on this the day we vote
the partisans cast by rote
taking current events as a sign
to parlay their party line
not taking the time to note
the reforms their actions smote
certain that they are guided by the divine
that if they win everything will be fine
as a young woman reads a letter her husband wrote
while he had been traveling afar by armored boat
she cherishes the every hurried line
of every banal thing on which he chose to opine
from the varied contents of his tote
to where he thought he had left his coat
because while the loyalist pretended all was fine
her husband had been killed by another mine
and if asked by one to come on stage to emote
she would respond in kind by cutting his throat
because ninety-eight out of every ninety-nine
do nothing but walk their party line
restricting the sale of adult themed games to adults is not a violation of free speech. protecting the integrity of the ratings system is not a violation of free speech.
Yes it is.
The right and responsibility to decide what games little Billy can buy belongs solely to his parents.
The right and responsibility to protect the integrity of the ESRB ratings belongs solely to the ESRB.
The government has no business interfering in either.
...for providing nutritional information on fast food frying oils to the consumer so NYC can ban them. (sarcasm)
You're a friggin idiot.
I'll take Morning After Pills over Video Game Censorship any day.
Those are what I refer to as "political democrats". They don't really believe in anything, they just want power. The best way to get power is to find an issue that makes people afraid (playing video games will make little Billy kill people at school) and tell them you are the only one with a plan to 'fix' the problem. Both dems and reps do this, so it is nothing new. Personally, if the DNC decided to run Hilary Clinton for Prez in '08, I wouldn't vote for her, and neither would a majority of the registered democrats. She's the worst of the power grabbers; no real beliefs, just a desire for power.
Space for rent, inquire within
Slashdot's position is really very simple. No kind of controls agianst their favourite hobby. Absolute freedom to do whatever we want. Anything less gets called fascism, or some other big sounding word that makes people think the situation is worse than it really is.
It really pisses me off that a lot of Dems have come to see videogames as a safe issue for them to rail on moralistically about. They figure it'll earn them the required goody points with the asshat social conservatives who vote with their dogma and not their brains, and at the same time it won't alienate very many people (and the few who it will alienate are the least likely to show up and vote anyway).
Interesting insights. Just out of curiousity, do you put Bill Clinton in the same category? It also makes for an interesting contrast between Leiberman and H.R. Clinton. Lieberman being concerned about violent videogames I understand and believe. He strikes me as generally sincere. That and he has a history on the subject. Clinton jumping on the bandwagon just looks political and reactive.
"restricting the sale of adult themed games to adults is not a violation of free speech."
Yes, it is a violation if the government gets involved in any way whatsoever. We can argue whether or not this censorship of free speech is justified, but that does not change it from being a censorship/free-speech issue at all.
Where were you when the voynix came?
at least the republicans kick out their pedophiles... Instead of praising them... like Gerry Studds
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
The example was about placing blame on the tool rather than on the use of the tool itself.
How you missed that, I'll never know.
It's just posturing really.
But hey, I live in WA. So you believe anything you want.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Kudos for saying that (and how can you not. "Oh I'm moving to New York and I'll be your senator")
Of course listening to how "they" (her supporters) talk about her every republican and democrat will love her, I won't, a lot of people won't if the other guy has a pulse. Personally I think they are forgeting her three flaws. Female, Clinton (sorry clinton supporters, there's people who will never vote for anyone even in his administration), and Democrat (ok it's a party not a flaw, but I didn't want to sink to calling her ugly)
Not all democrats are bad, not all republicans are bad, but certain ones are just disgusting and she's up there with Teddy Kennedy. (though Teddy's problem is probably that if he quits politics he has nothing else to do now that he gave up the whoring and the boozing).
The worse though is how moral the democrats are trying to look, while just 8 years ago it was "So what if Clinton cheated on his wife with an intern?". The democrats really have a huge problem if they don't win either house tonight, as their party structure is extremely weak right now and they need to solidify if they even want a chance in 08. Acting like Hillary should be considered a contender (or Obama who no one really has heard anything of in the last 2 years) has me shaking my head.
Then again the Republicans don't have a clear cut winner, but they arn't pretending to nominate weak minority candidates (weak as in chances to get into office) in an attempt to look like they "care". They have their share of problems but at least they are presenting a semi unified front that hasn't changed.