Slashdot Mirror
Games Industry Accused of 'Buying Political Clout'
A parent's group is lambasting the Electronic Software Association for announcing its intention to curry political favour in Washington DC. The games industry, for most of its life a much-maligned business sector, has just begun to work towards changing its image with US lawmakers. The Parents Television Council views this as attempting to 'buy influence in Congress', and views the ESA's plans harshly: "'The videogame industry continues to fight meaningful accountability for selling inappropriate material to children. The industry has been exposed repeatedly for its reprehensible behavior and now they are looking for ways to buy friends in the government,' said PTC President Tim Winter. 'Let me be clear of our intentions: Any public servant who cashes a check from the videogame industry will be exposed by the PTC as taking a stand against families, and his or her actions will be communicated to constituents in his or her congressional district.'" I wonder how they feel about lobbying by conservative 'pro-family' groups?
What, so it's only a bad thing when the gaming industry does it, and not when every other lobby in the universe does it?
Screw it. They tried to do it the right way, using reason, and compromise, and common sense, and it didn't work. So now, screw it, they're going to play the game, and it turns out that gaming is a fricking huge industry, and they can blow a ton of money on legislation that is favorable to them.
So now all the "Think of the Children" politicos are going to have to decide whether they want to keep pretending that they actually care, or whether they want money. Pretty much a no brainer.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
'The videogame industry continues to fight meaningful accountability for selling inappropriate material to children.
Can people stop using the word conservative to describe these groups? One of the cornerstones of conservatism is the belief in personal responsibility, and that includes taking responsibility as a parent, not sitting back and blaming the entertainment industry like some junkie approportioning the blame for his actions onto society.
If you can't be bothered to make the effort to learn what your children are doing, and enforce whatever rules you consider appropriate for your house, then you have no business complaining. A console/TV/computer is not a surrogate parent, and the games industry is not to blame if you've given your children a TV and Xbox360 in their room to shut them up.
If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
I'd like to announce a new program to help screen inappropriate material from children. Tentatively titled the "Federal Universal Child Kinship Oversight and Family Force Act" or F.U.C.K.O.F.F. Act for short. This act empowers the states to appoint guardians over minors based on whatever criteria they find reasonable, though it is expected that minors will be assigned based on a matching of their genetic makeup to that of available guardians. These guardians will be allowed to control the media the minor is exposed to, including but not limited to internet, television, radio, video games, and print media. It is the hope of Congress that this formal delegation will clarify the role of the government in the care of minors.
Sincerely,
-Ron Paul
I notice how everyone is suddenly becoming defensive and apologetic. "Everyone else does it too" is not an excuse. You already know this -- it's almost cliche now -- and yet we still find people who will excuse the behavior of any corporation with "Meh. It's a corporation. That's what corporations do."
But that's not why I'm posting. Actually, I find a sense of gratification -- one could even call it glee -- that for once, I'm on the side of the corporations, who are lobbying for something I want, rather than being the "little guy" screaming at the top of his lungs, wishing desperately that he was relevant.
And that's not why I'm posting, either. I am posting because of this outright fallacy quoted in the summary:
Oh, I get it. You're with us, or you're with the terrorists.
Look, am I the only one who sees more possibilities here? If I was trying to get ahead politically, why wouldn't I cash a check from anyone? It's not as if the money itself is tainted. The MPAA could pay me all they want, and I would still legislate against them, not for them. They can threaten to pull funding -- fine, I'll use the last of their own money to buy some ads, exposing how they essentially tried to bribe/blackmail me into writing legislation for them. A message of "I'm doing the right thing, even if it costs me money" should serve to get me re-elected, right?
It would be much more relevant to ask what that check was for, and to actually look at what that particular public servant does. People who cash checks from the MPAA do tend to write stuff like the DMCA. Are people cashing checks from the videogame industry any more or less likely to write censorship legislation?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
As apposed to what they do...