Slashdot Mirror
Politician Takes Enlightened Stance on Gaming
GamePolitics is reporting that one Australian would-be politician is taking an enlightened stance on gaming in general, and especially with respect to censorship. "Censorship is odious because it removes community choice. Censorship says that the thought is the action; that the common person can't distinguish between depiction and actuality... Censorship says, 'Let me decide who talks.' And games are talking. They're talking very loudly, to a great many people, in strong and clear voices. They're speaking in places that have never read a newspaper and in houses which have never listened to politicians. It's okay to be worried by what games are saying. It's okay to disagree. But it's not okay to stifle those voices. It's not okay to kill the game."
On the one hand, you're in Australia, where that really needs to be said. On the other hand, you're in Australia, good luck getting the ratings board there to listen to you.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
...whatever you do, DO NOT USE HIS NAME. Quote him if you must, but again DO NOT USE HIS NAME!
It's Greg Tannahill, btw.
Don't worry, it would still be enlightened even if it disagreed with yours.
Of course I'll call someone enlightened that agrees with me. If I don't agree with myself, I'm just calling myself stupid... and I try very hard to avoid being stupid.
So yes. Biased. But not unexpected.
And if you are wondering, he is a level 27 gnome Frost Mage on the Anetheron server. His account was banned after some in game threats to a Blizzard dev.
I will bend like a reed in the wind.
It's enlightened because it promotes freedoms rather than restricting them.
Or yesterday's, or tomorrow's.
from a minister this weekend. When he was a boy he lived in a rural part of Kentucky. There wasn't much to do around there, and video games weren't invented yet, so his brother used to "playfight" in the woods with some of his friends. They would take shotguns and shoot towards each other, making sure they were either out of range of the shotgun, or behind a tree. His brother was "playfighting" when one of his friends misjudged his distance. The results were similar to those of Harry Whittington after hunting with Dick Cheney. The injuries weren't life threatening, just very painful.
Upon hearing that story I decided that violent video games probably prevent more injury/death than they cause.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Respect for the individual? He'll never get elected in today's political climate.
People who actually give a shit about individual rights don't seek power over others. By trying to become a politician, he's just another Boromir who thinks he can do good by taking the One Ring.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
I don't see why most games can't give users the tools to self filter. At that point, it's the parent's responsibility.
They do. The consoles have parental controls built in. Parents just don't seem to want to bother to use them.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Before too long you have a kid kill a bunch of people and if the media determines the kid played violent video games then they sensationalize it.
Or the kid listened to Heavy Metal, or played Dungeons and Dragons, or dressed funny and wouldn't stay off my lawn. They never seem to point out the things like "started fights regularly in school" or "had a history of sudden violent outbursts" or "used threats of suicide to manipulate others" or "would mutter angrily to himself while polishing his gun"; but if the kid plays violent video games Watch Out!!!
We are all just people.
The candidate's name is Greg Tannahill he maintains a gaming blog and a political blog.
Gaming blog: The Dust Forms Words
Campaign blog: Greg Tannahill for Canberra.