Slashdot Mirror
Congressman Wants Health Warnings On Video Games
An anonymous reader writes "California Rep. Joe Baca has proposed a bill which would mandate placing health warning labels on any video game rated T (13+) or higher by the ESRB. The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2009 would require a cigarette pack-like label that reads, 'WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.'"
Just when I thought maybe elected officials could earn some modicum of respect. Well done, Joe.
go get it
Warning: Poor parenting leads to disaffected members of society.
Just when I thought maybe elected officials could earn some modicum of respect.
But did you really think about that? Sorry, I'm not convinced.
That warning might make sense, if if it were true that video games actually caused aggressive behaviour. As it stands, there has been no conclusive proof that video games actually do cause aggressive behaviour, and thus this label is actually just a deceptive, nanny state tactic.
Web Hosting: Unlimited storage and bandwidth: $5/month
"Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior" Except that it hasn't been.
I haven't followed the research enough so I could be completely wrong but isn't the reason why cigarettes can have the Surgeon General's health warning on them because the statement has been clinically proven. Has there been any consensus on video game violence and violence in teens.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
Psychologists have shown that, in fact, there is virtually no connection between playing violent video games and increased violence, so the Congressman from California has it exactly wrong:
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/05/17/the-link-between-video-games-and-violence/
I'm all for research supporting reasoned legislation, but in this case, it is ignorance and misconceptions supporting "feel good" government nannies.
--
Yes, the answer is no.
Perhaps the sentence "Warning: causation does not mean correlation" should be written into some congressmens' heads
You can have a warning on video games but as a trade off all political sites and offices must have a huge sign erected out front with "WARNING: Dangerous amounts of stupid inside."
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
I'm lobbying to get a mandatory message printed on all cell phones, that reads: "WARNING: cell phone usage has been linked to the collapse of honeybee populations".
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
The American Medical Association urged the FDA to tattoo a warning label on the forehead of all elected federal officials that states 'Listening to this individuals' logic has been linked to violent and aggressive behavior towards others.'
Kinda makes me wonder how bullshit the warnings on cigarettes are.
How we know is more important than what we know.
WARNING: Excessive exposure to warning labels and messages may make you less likely to pay attention to them, and prevent use of brain from exercising common sense and personal responsibility.
**/sarcasm
I say they should just go for it. Everybody knows the best way to keep young people away from something is to have a label on it telling them it's risky or otherwise uncouth. It worked soooo well for the music industry in the 80's. Totally showed those hair-metal bands who was boss.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Correlation does not mean causation. I guess I've been playing too many video games
It isn't the government's job to raise your kids for you, nor is it their job to babysit them later in life. Furthermore, it would be grossly inaccurate to say that higher exposure to violent games leads to or somehow causes violent behavior.
The government needs to go back to preventing one individual from harming another individual rather than being the morality/hand-holding police.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
If they insist that such warnings be placed on the entrances to religious institutions (like churches, mosques and synagogues) then I might think this idea is more than just political gainsaying.
Wikipedian Protester.
Mess not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
as we can affix a sticker to said State Representative's head that says "WARNING:Excessive exposure to politics has been linked to corruption and susceptibility to Moral Panics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic/
People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
This is like those cans of oxygen (for welding) my friend found at Home Depot that read WARNING: This product is known to cause cancer in the State of California.
How about this: We affix a label to all political offices that say "WARNING: There is no proven link between intelligence and holding public office. Political Science is really only a theory and should be judged critically and with consideration to other theories."
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Congressman Joe Baca's brother Chew is known to be quite agressive.
She made the willows dance
Thanks for the link. From your article:
Surprise, surprise! People who may already exhibit signs of anger or aggression may be drawn to such games. The games don't cause the anger or aggression. Such people may also be at greater risk for showing increased anger or aggression.
That's from a psychologist. Why can't the lawmakers figure it out?
Politicians and related busy-bodies regularly and repeatedly link video games and media to aggressive behavior.
Science and reality don't seem to agree, but who cares about them?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior
Citation needed.
The anti-gunners honed this strategy years ago. Remember how stupid it looks when your elected officials try to use it elsewhere/everywhere.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let California stack up a bunch of feel-good legislation like this, so the rest of us can point to them as an example of a failed nanny state.
Anyone suggesting this in the face of a $44 billion budget deficit should be run out of town.
"Joining the military may be hazardous to your health."
"Progress is the opposite of Congress."
"Paying your taxes subsidizes stupidity."
"Voting is an endorsement of the status quo."
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
http://www.apa.org/releases/resolutiononvideoviolence.pdf
I especially like the part where R-rated movies were included in the bill based on the conclusions of similar dubious studies. Oh, wait, they weren't. Wonder why that is?
Could you make it so it displays for a full two minutes on my cell phone display, locking out all other functions, every time I turn it on? That would be awesome!
Maybe that's what they can do with this game warning, every time you start the game you're forced to watch the publisher logo, the developer logo, the ATI/nVidia logo, the design studio logo, two previews for titles "coming soon!" and then this warning! It would be just like going to the movies!
.
At the very least, you should get the warning they're talking about here applied to cell phones
"warning: talking on the phone about inane stuff no one wants to hear about while in a resturaunt, bus, train, airplane on the ground, elevator, or any public place will soon be linked to violence against you."
What a wonderful idea you have there, Congressman! Let's have the warning read:
"WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior."[citation needed]
So... planning on citing a source on the warning label, or are you just going to blatantly declare that a massive medical or psychological study, conducted by a prestigious, well-known scientific organization, reached the peer-accepted consensus that "Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior." exists?
Protip for Washington: Such a medical study does NOT exist. Ever. NO STUDY HAS EVER FOUND A CONCLUSIVE LINK BETWEEN VIOLENT MEDIA AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR.
I wonder how the shoe would feel on the other foot (a similar bill, targeted at the movie industry?)
I'm writing this from jail after being arrested for a shooting rampage in an office, a warehouse and two desert cities.
Sure, put warning on whatever you want. The people who smoke ignore those warnings. The people who play video games continue to do so. And everybody's happy in the end. Put a warning on me: Too Sexy. Ladies watch out! (Where's that come from?!)
Parents by and large realize the government is not going to raise their children. They would like you to stop blaming the entire parent population for the political aspirations of a small minority of self-righteous idiots.
How fitting that his name means "stupid" in Japanese...
Labels could include:
And for the bonus round:
Q: What do you call 1,000 politicians buried up to their necks in sand?
A: Not enough sand.
Kevin Smith on Prince
If Congress passes this, I am buying a roll of stickers saying "[citation needed]" and visiting local video game stores.
Maybe then games would get taken seriously as art?
Warning: Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Warning: Power attracts the corruptable.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The word "Baka" (romanization) in Japanese means "Idiot".
...and other violent media...
Yep, so you go ahead and try to get the same message printed on all movies, too, and we'll see just how long you're representing California.
of Penny Arcade said it best:
"It's the same argument that we have whenever they -- when some kid goes nuts, right, and shoots up his school, and they find the video game, right? 'Oh, he had Doom on his computer.' Well of course he had Doom on his computer! He was a violent fuck. Violent people like video games. I don't think one leads to the other."
Where is the correlation!=causation tag?
This isn't really that weird for CA, they put warning labels on everything. You can find a "Warning [whatever we're labeling] is known to the state of California to cause [some really random condition]." Parking lots, food at the grocery store, beach water, you name it, CA slaps a warning label on it.
A new Health warning: Warning! Congressional acts can cause the following: -Loosing money -loosing sense -loss of common sense -loss of health benefits -loss of house -higher health risks due to big business pollution -loss of sons or daughters life due to congress enabling war in which they will not fight in
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
The real concern over video games, FPSs specifically, is chronic stimulation of fright/flight/fight response.
Play the adrenalin- and cortisol-response producing games long enough and you'll be at much higher risk of associated problems.
If you think you might have such problems, do some research on stress as it relates to hyperglycemia.
Ever notice that all these superfulous warning messages always append "...in the state of California"? I'm starting to think it's not the products that are the issue here. Clearly, we just need to stop allowing Californians to buy anything more dangerous than an unbleached paper towel roll.
This guy's name is too perfect, it sounds like "Joe Baka" ("ããfãf¼é¦é"), or even "Chou Baka" ("è...é¦é"). (Admittedly I'm reaching with that last one)
Despite all the pictures on tobacco packets people still smoke.
Also Wikipedia, the free "citation needed" encyclopedia has disclaimers but no-body reads them, but people rely on Wikipedia everyday. Most games already have disclaimers on their splash screens anyway.
A direct example, We troll slashdot as a troll as AC but Slashdot dosen't have a health warning saying "warning, reading slashdot may cause you to visit websites of a guy stretching his ass (you know who he is).
I say let them do it.
They did it with music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_Advisory) and the sales sky rocketed.
"This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence"
Just when I thought maybe elected officials could earn some modicum of respect. Well done, Joe.
I don't really care how they make the package look so long as they still let me buy it. Thats my concern. I don't think its quite a slippery-slope argument to say that this type of action may lead to bans or restrictions in the future. And that would suck... I like my freedom.
And they should read:
Warning: Playing this game may turn you into a fat, socially introverted nerd. Side-effects may include cheeto-fingers, Mt Dew-insomnia, and acne from lack of bathing. Pro-longed exposure may result in heart disease or starvation from being too lazy to make a sandwich.
I've seen a few WoW players with the early warning signs and let me tell you, it's not pretty. You're much better off binging on cigarettes and alchohol; at least then you'll be cool.
I have been a huge Dem since I was able to vote. Yes I honostly belive that they are the pro-speech party. However I am ashamed that my party seems to be in many ways leading the anti-videogame charge. From the Gore's to Mrs. Clinton somehow many democrats think that they need to regulate games. This is wrong and shamefull. I am somewhat comforted that good 'ol Jack is a raving rightwinger, but it doesn't excuse the party of change. Come on dems, do the right thing!
I just wrote an exhaustive essay on the so-called effects of video game violence. I'm really looking forward to any feedback you may have about it. For the record, I'm on the side of video games. http://www.digital-us.org/video-games/2008/11/27/violent-video-games.html
I'd like to see a warning label affixed to every ballot that says: "WARNING: Electing politicians has been linked to recession, higher taxes, and war."
I don't blame all parents, I blame the ones who voted for and continue to support this "small minority" that keeps attempting to shove its values down everyone else's throat. It's to the point where those parents are no longer bearing any responsibility for the raising of their children and attempt to shift responsibility to others; politicians take advantage of this. "See look at me I'm protecting the childrrrren..." and everyone else has to deal with that nonsense.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Putting a label "WARNING: This game will turn you into a psychotic killing machine" on any game, even "Hello Kitty Knits with her Friends," would instantly make it the highest grossing game of all time.
Seriously, is Representative Baca paying off political donations from the games industry?
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Exactly true.
In just the same way that Sadaam Hussein was linked to 9/11 and Weapons of Mass Destruction, necessitating the preemptive invasion if Iraq.
If a politician or group has a hidden agenda, and wants to make it happen, he will find the research to support it and ignore the rest.
"WARNING: Excessive exposure to politician's speeches may lead to nausea and vomiting!"
And of course the ever popular "WARNING: Excessive exposure to XXX DVD's may cause carpal tunnel and other Repetitive Stress Injuries!"
A multitude of studies have linked cigarettes and lung cancer -- how many valid scientific studies have proven a causal relationship between video games and violence?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Somehow I doubt Natalie will be disappointed at all...
In an extensive series of studies, it has been conclusively demonstrated that all living organisms that breathe die! Scientists caution against breathing until a safer method is discovered.
Warning: Excessive exposure to politicians will result in apathetic or amoral behavior. View with Extreme Caution.
The first step to get people to agree to something they might not otherwise have agreed to (like banning video games) is getting them in the right mindset. As a good example, you'd never have gotten away with outright banning of cigarette smoking in private establishments 20 years ago, and we're at the point now where there are people who would ban smoking entirely, even in private residences and private automobiles. I had a ridiculous argument with someone that argued the government ought to be able to ban ANYTHING they know to be unhealthy (including cigarettes, soda, pizza, and bungee jumping) and even require people to exercise.
The first step they took to being able to get the public to accept smoking bans were laws requiring the labeling on the packs of smokes, and the frankly overstated arguments about second hand smoke. Now, I'm not saying second hand smoke is not dangerous (and I don't smoke, and I honestly think smoking is pretty stupid and annoying), I'm saying there is a lot of evidence to show the claims were exaggerated. Now there actually exist people that would ban smoking in your own homes.
Now, this guy I was arguing with seemed like a complete moron to me, but nevertheless... there are people like him.
So... not saying this will lead to a ban on some types of games, but you might as well nip stupidity in the bud. The games already got a T or M rating, that's quite enough.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Oh, had a foggy moment there...you're talking about "a bill", not Bill Clinton. My bad.
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
Warning: Excessive exposure to Big Macs may cause a fat ass.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
All power corrupts, but we need electricity!
How about a warning that says:
"Kids that have aggressive tendencies are attracted to games like this. When they eventually commit a crime remember to save your UPC so you can properly blame this game."
Dipshits.
WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.
Yeah. That's what he wants. Tipper Gore and her ilk wanted the same kind of thing for music. It didn't quite work out their way. Taking a page from what the RIAA did, the ESRB might want to consider labels such as:
WARNING: This game is so fucking awesome that you might HIT yourself if you don't buy it!
Over the label will be a small starburst sticker reading:
WARNING: This warning too "edgy" for public view.
California Rep. Joe Baca
Isn't "Baca" Japanese for "fool?"
... that the relationship might be reversed, and that it's developmentally aggressive tendencies that DRAW PEOPLE TOWARD the violent games in the first place? The games aren't CAUSING the aggressiveness, they're a REFLECTION of it.
WARNING: Excessive exposure to useless & stupid warnings has been linked to aggressive behavior.
In real life, the warning should read: "excessive exposure to bullies and backstabbers has been linked to aggressive behavior."
If anything, the game MIGHT give them creative ideas how to express their frustrations. But in normal cases, it simply gives them the place to vent those frustrations.
Following the little warning, it should read, Warning: this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data, as well as lack of scientific analysis. Experiments have pointed both ways (yet we have cherry picked this one) and to this day, many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation. You can however have faith in the fact that if your children are young enough, they may be as stupid as the chain of idiots who have wasted your tax money on this crap. This entails that, like lemmings, without proper guidance/responsibility, they will most likely attempt (and fail) to pick up a hooker and shoot her in the face to avoid paying the fees, following an uninterrupted session of GTA. If they get closer to success than desired, no matter how hilarious it may be, it is YOUR responsibility, not the source of this media.
Help fight spam
Let's put a label on all greenbacks and coinage that reads:
Warning: Exposure to this has been linked to such behaviors as lying, cheating, stealing, and murder. In God We Trust.
I don't know about you, but my games are "T" because of the sex and drugs. Well, not really but still... are "H" (Hentai) games, and something like a "Harold and Kumar go to Whitecastle: the videogame" going to require this hokey "violent videogames blaaaahhh" warning on them when it's irrelevant?
Also, there should be agreement that the statement is true before the warning is put on... I think any doctor will agree cigarette labels are accurate... and there's noone claiming people with lung cancer, etc., just happen to prefer cigarettes..Games? It's an open question, I could see agressive people preferring agressive games versus the games like making them agressive. Note how the message is all weasely-worded "has been linked to", to make sure they don't state causation, but imply it.
Joe Baca is generally a problem. He was influential in getting new regulations passed to make it easier for lower-income families to get loans, and now his district is one of the highest, if not the highest, foreclosure rates in the nation. He has steered PAC money to his sons' election attempts when the use of that money explicitly conflicted with the guidelines for their use. His election to head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus was a public one when the Caucus is supposed to hold private votes. When Rep. Loretta Sanchez -- also a Democrat, Hispanic, and from the same state -- pointed this out and called for a new, secret ballot, he called her a whore.
Even for a Washington politician, Baca is quite capable of some low deeds.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Leave it to the Democrats and their Nanny Government to save us from ourselves.
I wonder if "Mamma Obama" will subscribe to the same conrol-freak logic as his fellow party members.....
The *REALLY* sad part is that I already can tell some vindictive prick will mod this down.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
I'd start cracking games, just to get rid of the crap.
Quite seriously. When did annoying your customer become a business model?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So you're countering one slippery slope argument with another?
Slapping a warning label on a product will increase the likelihood of that product being banned as much as playing violent video games will increase the likelihood of committing violent acts.
If you say you aren't afraid of violent video games influencing people to cause violent acts, then you shouldn't be against a warning label out of fear that it might influence people to want to ban a product.
Also, cigarettes are a completely different beast. Wear a fishbowl on your head and smoke a cigarette in that, and you could smoke indoors, outdoors, wherever the hell you wanted.
Just trying to nip stupidity in the bud.
"notanotherjackthompson" >:D
Add a bit of the old in-out game, and I'm in for it.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
even require people to exercise.
Heh, theres a perfect clip in the movie adaptation of 1984 you could show to those people.
Right, let's see which one of us can touch his toes.
Right over from the hips, brothers and sisters, please.
One, two.
Smith? Smith, W.?
Yes, you.
Bend lower.
You're not trying. Watch me.
There, brother. That's what I want.
Anyone under 45 is perfectly capable of touching his toes.
I'm 39 and I've had four children.
We don't all have the privilege of fighting in the front line.
Remember our boys on the Malabar Front.
WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.
So if I can get a couple of hot chicks to play a video game for..
I need a more precise definition of "excessive exposure", please.
I wanna see this warning label: "Smoking Cigarettes has been linked to cowboy behavior"
The problem is, that cigarettes (not pure tobacco. cigarettes!) are more addictive than heroin. That's no joke. Look it up. Most people think it's just a light drug, because of the weak effects it has, compared to other drugs. But it's just that cigarettes have an extremely bad addictiveness/effect ration, because of the 600+ substances that intentionally got added to the tobacco, to make it impossible for you to stop.
I say there's no right more fundamental, that the right to do with your own body as you please. But the second most important rule of a society is, to do no harm to others. And that's exactly what making tobacco so addictive, while keeping quiet is. It's tricking you into dependence on their product. So we should forbid that exact behavior. And punish the one who decided it in exactly one of two ways (in that order): A) Expel them, and disallow them any direct or indirect relationship to this country, while explaining very clearly what is non-acceptable behavior in this society. That way he has to deliberately continue despite knowing that we don't want it, to reach... B) If that does not help: Get your agents to shoot them.
Plain, simple, fair.
Unfortunately the government, and companies like that, are largely the same thing nowadays. So the government are the people that should be punished by (A), or (B) if really necessary.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
... just as long as they put similar stickers on the doors of military recruitment centers.
// This is not a sig.
In 2006, the video game industry contributed $3.8 billion to the US GDP, not to mention $1.7 billion to California's economy (our friendly representative's home state). The industry also directly and indirectly supplies over 80,000 jobs nationwide. Source (something this bill conspicuously lacks.)
Although some economists remain optimistic about the continued success of the industry, I can't help but wonder how restrictive, unwarranted, baseless legislation like this and other "nanny" bills will affect the health of not just the video game industry but the US economy as a whole. Care to address that, representative who has no business talking about video games, ever?
On another note, this bill would have all games rated "T" or higher branded with a warning. For some perspective, according to the ESRB, video games rated "T" include:
SingStar ABBA - "A karaoke music game in which players sing along with music videos featuring the disco group, ABBA." This one got its "T" rating because of its lyrics.
Better slap that warning on every ABBA cd too.
Commander In Chief - Geo-Political Simulator - "A political simulation game in which players can assume the role of the head of state or government of a real country. Using text-based menus, players can enter military alliances, monitor political party activity, make economic and social decisions, and retain overall popularity."
I'll be damned if my kids ever get near this travesty.
Prinny: Can I Really Be the Hero? - "A 2D side-scrolling action game in which players control a talking penguin on its whimsical quest to retrieve a fabled ultra-delicious dessert."
Just... wow.
Thank you, Joe Baca, for not only wasting everyone's time but actively distracting from any of the real problems facing this country.
WARNING: Excessive exposure to football games and other violent sports has been linked to aggressive behavior.
WARNING: Excessive exposure to religious rhetoric has been linked to aggressive behavior.
See: The Crusades, Saddam Hussein's Kurdish Genocide, Jihad bil Saif ((Jihad as warfare), etc.
Who does this guy think he is, the surgeon general?
for school, job, and anytime politicians open their mouths:
Warning: repeated exposure to stupidity may cause you to lose your mind, lose intelligence, or to believe utterly incorrect things as true.
Doesn't he have better things to deal with right now then useless labels that are both unproven, completely meaningless and without merit. Go figure out your state's budget problem. Go solve a real problem.
you know what else should come with a warning? politicians: warning I might be speaking from my ass because thats where i keep my wallet which was lined by the company whose interests im currently taking above your own.
Or in this case the angry idiotic soccer moms who are too busy spending money to raise their kids. Funny thing, the kids who play the most video games are generally not in nearly enough physical shape to cause problems... and they are usually too busy playing the games to go be violent.
I'm far more concerned with the meatheads who walk around thinking they are invincible because they spend all their time in a gym, and that because they can bench a whole lot it means that a. only they matter. and b. that they have the right to threaten you with violence to get what they want. Where is their warning? And why not slap one one on beer / guns / cars / horns / etc.
Again I'm not asking the gov't to have do a damn thing about it... my point is these kids aren't violent because of video games. They are violent because they are tired of getting walked all over their entire lives. And perhaps that 'violence' is the only possible way they know how to make it stop.
But I digress. Congressman whatever your f'ing name is do the state you represent a favor and get back to doing something that actually CONCERNS them at a more significant level than video games. What's next? distract them from your current failures by championing some legislation to get rid of some of your obscure uninforced / uninforcible blue laws?
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
But apparently not other people's. Saying "You can't create and sell that product unless..." is limiting somebody's freedom.
How about those classic games we all loved as kids, now classified as "E" (Everyone) titles:
Pac-Man: A paranoid man with an eating disorder (or meth addiction) is chased by "ghosts." Might not fare well with the fundamentally religious, schizophrenic or anyone with a former substance abuse problem. FYI: The last "Pac-Man" went off to prison...
Frogger: A frog dodges cars in an attempt to return home to its lily pad and procreate.
The cars are obviously do-gooder citizens (our "consumer society"), while the frog is simply someone with a low socioeconomic status (deadbeat, teenage dad). The frog's preoccupation with continuing its family lineage prevents it from being a successful member of "society"; it does not have a car to drive, and must walk, instead.
Pong: A tug-of-war between two men (paddles) and a woman (ball) in an abusive love triangle. The term "balling" is used as an euphemism for physical intercourse, born of this game.
I gues they should put warning labels on Big Mac's too. That SOB will kill you much faster than ANY video game.
-R-
CAUTION: Being elected to public office has been linked to ass hattery.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Bill did succeed in getting quite a few blowjobs, at the cost of roughly one dry-cleaning bill.
No, his problem was he was too cheap to pay for Monica's dry cleaning.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
While you might not like to hear it, conventional psychology says that any behavior you take is likely to be repeated and that any behavior observed is very close to identical as doing it yourself (You remember it differently of course but brain activity is very similar).
So basically this should have been assumed but of course it's always nice to have the research to back it up... especially in the case where in games the characters are clearly not real people, of course once again psychology says we think in symbols so...
Anyway, all this means is that the research supports what has been the basic assumption and while the small change might not seem like a big difference when you think of it in a feeling, if you think of it as a group of action then it can be. If there's roughly a 2% increase in aggression, that might seem like the person is just "slightly more aggressive"... or probably should be right that that's an extra moment out of every 50 where the person becomes aggressive. Instead of the person laughing off that joke, they might get pissed off at you.
Just food for thought. Personally I don't think it needs the kind of stigma associated with such a warning. The government has no right to tell people who they may react to a given stimulus. Warning somebody that something might kill them is a whole lot different than warning people that they may kill someone.
'WARNING: Excessive exposure to politics and the media has been linked to mental disease.'
On a beach ball, sold in a package that called it a Beach Ball showing only kids on the package,
And stamped on the beach ball in 12 languages no less.
Warning:
The last one I can see but...
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Banning smoking became easy because it just simply became socially unacceptable. Which is the preferred way of getting something banned rather than just suddenly banning something.
I mean, it started slowly, from my memory as a kid
1) first, you couldn't smoke on the buse
2) then you couldn't smoke in a public building
3) then you couldn't smoke within 20 feet of a public building
4) then you couldn't smoke in restaurants
5) then you couldn't smoke in bars (although here in Omaha, some big businesses got themselves exempted from the ban initially)
6) now you can't smoke any public establishment.
However, an outright public smoking ban will never happen, because it's unenforceable. If it does happen, all it'll ever be used for is for police to stop someone because they are smoking if they think they're up to no good. It's kind of like how in Omaha, fireworks are banned, but the police never stop (in fact, on July 4th they'll stop and wait for your fireworks to go off before continuing down the street) anyone or arrest anyone unless someone gets hurt and they get slapped with the related charges.
Point taken. But he still got the blowjobs, right? And he didn't cause much harm to the country, unlike his successors (I can't wait to see the Obama debacle). So a well-laid president who doesn't fuck up the economy or practice neo-fascist politics is fine by me.
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
California Rep. Joe Baca needs to change the spelling of his last name to "Baka" [Google Japanese translation].
I know it's not anywhere near the same thing, but as a jew (and i'm sure any previously oppressed minority can relate) I find it rather disgusting that they're trying to label specific articles of expression (albeit entertainment) with unfounded misinformation.
It reminds me of those tales of jewish people eating babies.
Granted this is merely a physical object of trivial social value, but misinformation is misinformation.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Something else to point out is this type of warning label wouldn't affect online sales. Physical retail stores will start looking like death dealers though. Parents will see the labels as proof that it causes violence and warm up parents to idea that banning games is good.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
WARNING: Excessive exposure to house representatives and other congress members has been linked to a strong desire to leave the U.S.
But apparently not other people's. Saying "You can't create and sell that product unless..." is limiting somebody's freedom.
Maybe I was not clear enough. I like my freedom, and others'. And in this case, I am indifferent (given it does not slip the slope), but that doesn't necessarily oblige me to defend those of others. That doesn't mean I don't like others to have freedom, as you have said, it just means I'm not interested in deliberately protecting them in this case.
Since when has it been proven that violence in video games leads to violence from those who play them?
Let's see, many games rated T and above sell tens of thousands of copies, if not in the hundreds of thousands. How many instances of violence do we see? Not nearly so many. And not only that, we can't for sure link those instances of violence to video games, but we definitely know that if that were the case, there would be far more instances.
No, the warnings should be that video games shouldn't be played by idiots who don't understand the difference between fantasy and reality. Of course, that should be common sense, but sadly Mr. Common Sense died years ago thanks to Mr. Stupid masses and the wonder that is our own society encouraging stupidity and rewarding it.
The label should read, "WARNING: Living in a violent warmongering society has been linked to aggressive behavior." And it should be put on a billboard on every major interstate highway in America.
Yeah, they more or less told people who didn't know better which artists were willing to swear and thus the kind of music that they might like in addition to what section of the store it was in. Games already have that. Now we know which games are willing to show blood, body, and language that is representative of the world we live in. It's all in that little label on the front already. This won't change anything except taking up more space on my cool box art.
Why isn't "Warning: the swearing in this CD may cause you to swear" or some other such made up lies on that CD you bought?
Warning: Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Warning: Power attracts the corruptable.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
- Jimi Hendrix
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
I'd say warmongering is better than abortion, because it always better to kill someone else's child than your own.
This is my sig.
The labels are more for the politicians and conservatives than for any real benefit for the gamers. What gamer would bother paying attention to them? They will be ignored In relation to parents, the type of parent who pays attention to that kind of label isn't likely to buy a violent game for there kid anyway. Its just a pointless exercise is peen flexing and the wasting of a little paper and glue.
"This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence"
"This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence me droogies."
Fixed that for ya.
Thank you!
-i work in baca's district. believe me i'm with you. i was thinking i should post an entry similar to yours until i saw yours.
but to do my part, here's the article referring to baca's role in the housing crisis from the WSJ the other day:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111072368352309.html
i like how these people pushed the subprime loans and now that they backfired they blame the greedy lenders rather than their own misguided attempts to give people something they don't deserve. they drove them TO the lenders!
don't forget the non-profit group he started to funnel money to also. he should be jailed for money laundering.
Apparently "other media" can also cause violence! How about DVD's and television? Shouldn't they also come with a big warning? Or is it just those eeeeevil computer games again?
Any station that has violent content should have that warning plastered along the top half of the screen, permanently!
had a ridiculous argument with someone that argued the government ought to be able to ban ANYTHING they know to be unhealthy (including cigarettes, soda, pizza, and bungee jumping) and even require people to exercise.
What if you put a TV in every home with a built-in webcam so you can watch people and make sure they're exercising? Just be sure to put it on the short wall otherwise people will try to bring down the government.
"The problem is, that cigarettes (not pure tobacco. cigarettes!) are more addictive than heroin."
I've never had anyone offer a blowjob in exchange for a cigarette.
Heroin, on the other hand...
To begin: I am against banning things. At least banning people from doing something to themselves. I don't smoke (except 2-3 good cigars per year) and I understand the risks of most things I do. Your claim that the danger of second hand smoke have been exaggerated are however probably untrue. The latest research actually seems to suggest that the dangers are way underestimated. That's based on some pretty big datasets from places where smoking in public has been banned for some time now. Even better datasets will be available in 5 to 10 years. It's especially the risk of heart problems that seem to have been underestimated.
Any bulletproof evidence for that? What if the overall effect is calming (e.g. people get the GRR! out of their system by playing Duke Nukem Forever (or whatever) and don't kill?
Still. Those empty gestures that play to your core voters are great. Far better than taxing your brain on fixing the economy or improving education.
may:
- cause you brain to be filled with FUD
- empower the nanny-state
- damage a honest industry
- do nothing to stop violence or solve society's problems
- cause severe aggravation and aggression against certain politicians
- make you vomit
assignment != equality != identity
that found no evidence whatsoever for correlation in between violent video games and aggressive behaviour ?
HOW did this Joe Baca find the evidence ?
man. after obama got elected, for a moment i thought there was some hope for better quality representatives in america. but apparently change hasnt come to congress's level yet.
Read radical news here
We can easily see how things will progress with the current trend of violent videogames like WoW, Tetris and Halo: http://loadingreadyrun.com/videos/view/228/
Since I was a kid, I was exposed to the following "violent" media: I watched uncensored Daffy Duck, Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, Foghorn Leghorn and Yosemite Sam cartoons. I have played with realistic looking plastic toy guns. I have played realistic FPS games. I have watched horror movies and sci-fi television that would have most conservative watchdogs today scream out loud "OMG THE CHILDREN!".
Taking in account ALL of these sources of "influence", how do I react when I see on television of REAL LIFE shootings and deaths? I'm still shocked and dismayed. Yes, it's true, violent movies and games have YET to make me a violent individual who thinks that killing people is acceptable.
It's amazing how well-grounded a parent can make their child just by pointing out to him "It's all made up of course - see that guy who just got shot? It's faked, he'll just stand up as soon as the director yells CUT!"
I've never had anyone offer a blowjob in exchange for a cigarette.
Heroin, on the other hand...
Oh for fucks' sake. You can get a cigarette easily on a shop anywhere for a few dollars. Try that with heroin.
http://punditkitchen.com/
Last night I played a blank tape at full volume. The mime next door went nuts.
How about a label, "Warning: People with aggressive behavior may be attracted to these games."?
Because of some hare-brained law (possibly an initiative---the only people who make worse laws than legislators are average voters), California posts warning signs on any public buildings that contain, or could possibly contain, virtually any amount of a chemical that has any sort of potential link with cancer. As a result, just about every public building has a warning about how it contains chemicals "known to the state of California to cause cancer". Since all buildings have it, the warning sign is of course useless.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
That is the exact same tactic that has been used for years in regards to firearms laws, they've been telling the public for years that firearms are evil and do nothing but kill people when the truth is that bad people do bad things. The erosion of our rights in this country is sickening and needs to stop. It wont be long until we're living in a socialist country with dictators for rulers.
Good work Joe, next we gotta get the cars. Yeah I can see it, the lower half of each car sold should be labeled. Something like, driving too fast can causes injuries and death. Driving and driving is a criminal offence or yet Have you fastened your seatbelt lately?
He`s just trying to get some press coverage, nothing to do with video games or labelling.. unfortunately, were giving him all the press we wants
I have the solution! Let's go kill a congressman!
Note to whomever has tapped this wire: that was a joke.
I'm old enough to remember feeling peeved that the Cristian Right was coming down on Dungeons and Dragons for "encouraging Satanism". I was an Christian-scented agnostic at the time and certainly had no belief in Satan, so the whole thing struck me as stupid busybodies taking away something that I loved for an incredibly stupid and false reason. I have never forgotten that.
That said, is it true that children who play very violent video games (such as Grand Theft Auto, where psychopathic behavior is rewarded) will become more aggressive? If it is true, then how true is it?
(Do I forbid my elementary-school-age child from playing Grand Theft Auto? You bet your ass I do.)
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Exactly what evidence is there to back up the aggressive behaviour claim?
Power corrupts
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Petty power corrupts all out of proportion to the real amount of power.
Politicians are endowed with a special mix of petty and absolute power such that they are all 100% corrupt while not being absolutely powerful.
If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
WARNING: Your kid is evil for even wanting this game.
http://www.beanleafpress.com
Uh, Guitar Hero is a Teen-rated series, yet it has no particular violence in it. Why would this law mandate such a warning on such a game, then? Oh, that's right, because in a politician's eyes, every game above a certian age rating is a blood and gore fest.
When it worked so well for Hollywood.
Go ahead with the warning, I say, but add
2 more words: "by fools".
Complies with the proposed law, right, but gives the correct information. If more polite wording like "by studies which have been discredited" were to be used it might be even better...
"Warning: Voting for me has been linked to high blood pressure and aggression."
By the way, these guys are idiots. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the violent crime rate in the US has dropped in half during the era of violent video games.
If you believe that proliferation of violent video games should cause a proportional increase in violent crime (the only justification for warnings like this), then the statistics should show increasing incidence of violent crime.
Since there is no obvious threat to public safety posed by video games, as shown by statistics, I think all these congressmen should shut their whore mouths and follow the constitution.
It's been a long time.
[insert quote from famous/respected/knowledgeable person that has some reference to power and corruption here]
Dont troll me, cos thats what the last 10 posts have been doing more or less!
Warning: These Warning labels are created by control freak gub-mint goons who have nothing better except warn you about insignificant weird-ass studies with no correlation to reality. Enjoy your game.
Was aggressive behaviour linked to violent media and games in the same study that linked colon cleanser to losing those 10 pounds you can't get rid of with regular exercise?
California.
^^ Truth.
its the same on TV. If a movie is about to come on and the presenter says "This movie contains violent scenes and full frontal nudity" damned if I'm changing the channel!
What I want to know is whether this will apply to Americas Army, the game produced specifically for kids to get them interested in a career in the military? It is a First Person Shooter but you only ever get to shoot terrorists. Does that make it OK?
I dont read
Warning: This product usually makes users into passive hide in your basement geeks. :-P
Before somebody else mods Arikol up, lets see the proof of these studies he claims to have read.
Lets go pal, if you're gonna open your flap, back it up. Otherwise, you've just giving us the same crap the Politicans do.. a lotta hot air and nothing to back it up.
I think "Paying attention to what your children are doing may lead to improved education, social interaction and general well-being." is a better warning message.
Now we see the violence inherent in the system.
Massive Difference ...
Soda is bad for you in large quantities, but won't do any harm as a treat .. but it's your health ... .. but it's your health ... .. but it's your health ...
Pizza is bad for you in large quantities, but won't do any harm as a treat
Video Games might be bad for you in large quantities, but won't do any harm as a treat
Smoking is bad for you even in small doses, and is also harmful to those around you
If tobacco smoking had not been discovered until recently it would be banned outright and no-one would argue .... it is only that we are used to it that we accept it at all
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Countering a slippery slope arguement with an arguement backed up by no facts?
Even if you are right there is still a reason to resist this measure, goverment should exert control of the freedoms of its people only where there is sufficient need. If your goverment can't give you a good reason for doing something you shouldn't support it.
The median IQ is 100. There are over 400 congressmen, is it any wonder that half of them are dumb as boxes of rocks?
Note this dimwit merely wants warnings. Its legislation hasn't been passed, and I doubt it will, considering that no study has ever showed what this idiot congressman thinks.
Do we have the new Jack Thompson here? people in California, please get rid of this retard next election!
Free Martian Whores!
So it seems that most of us agree that this bill is bad BS. Is anyone going to do something about it other than complain in a discussion thread on a website that our congress-people most likely don't read? I for one write letters when I hear about this stuff. Politicians feel that they are accurately representing their constituents when no one complains and they continue to be re-elected. Most senators/congress-people have websites with forms for sending them mail. It takes two minutes and every second is worth it. Empower yourself.
What the word "linked" means to a journalist is that Thing A has been mentioned in an article with Thing B.
Journalists are the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party, so it should be no surprise that Democrat representatives behave like journalists.
Such "linking" is part of the Democrat War on Science - linking power lines and illness, linking vaccines to autism, linking particle accelerators to dangerous black holes.
Causality is passe. Linking is in.
Quash competitive behavior before it can ever take root, sound strategy.
Yes, violent games can make you aggressive... while playing them. Violent videogames does not mean you will turn into a murderous psychopath that loves to steel cars and rape... No, that would be the economy.
Warning - banging hookers in GTA may impair your ability to bang hookers in real life.
Free Martian Whores!
Aren't there already laws against products making claims not based in fact?
It's never been proven that violent video games CAUSE violence, since obviously violence has existed long before the advent of computerized gaming, comic books, pr0n, and other so-called degenerate influences.
Ghengis Khan never played GTA.
It always saddens me to see Democrats act like morons. Our party is about freedom, not censorship. Time to purge the "Blue Dogs" out.
Should be interesting to see how this plays out with the MPAA and the television networks in regards to their content. I can't imagine this applying to anything else, except maybe live events like contact sports, where such a message must be stamped on the back of every audience members' hands before they are permitted to enter.
8==8 Bones 8==8
It doesn't matter how bad it is for you if you are making the decision for yourself, that's my point.
If a city bans smoking on the sidewalk or on public transportation, that's their prerogative, and I'd agree with it. Banning smoking in private establishments crosses the line, however, and the call to ban it outright, even one's own home or automobile, is simply fascist.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
WARNING: Any exposure to idiocy such as this is nearly guaranteed to cause a violent reaction causing you to want to punch a certain Californian politician in the face.
The reason the Federal Government claims it pushes for regulation on anything is to protect society. But whatever happened to society protecting itself. They put out warning lables to warn the public, and if those fail, they push actual limitations. Warnings against the possible cause are empty threats as it simply gives the user someone else to blame when the result comes to fruition. When was the last time a gun maufacturer was prosecuted for murder... they have it right, blame the user, not the product. Spread that out to the rest of the system.
The truth is they push warnings to save Money, and it should be pushed that way. Chain of logic is as follows: Smoking causes medical problems: Smoking is common among the poor: The Government pays for healthcare for the poor: If we reduce smoking we will save money.
I'm all for regulation on items that are known to be unhealthy, but the limitation should not be a ban on the product, but rather a ban on government support / liability.
With Cigarettes they put a warning label to warn the public, and then started banning its use to protect the public from the health risks. The government could care less if a person uses tobacco, but when a lifetime smoker gets government healthcare, and the taxpayer ends up paying for their cancer treatments.
I believe the warning lables should be on all these products: Burgers, Soda, Bungee Jumping cords, video games, etc; but it should be written as such:
WARNING: Use of is known to cause or influence . By using this product you claim all liability for such known result, and waive the right to government assistance and/or the right to blame anyone but yourself for its use.
Studies have been done, known issues have been addresses, and by telling the user that they must accept responsibility for themselves will have a great darwinistic effect on society. Those who choose to Drink Soda non-stop their whole life should not rely on the government that warned them when they request assistance for their gastric/bypass surgery or their Diabetic medication.
It doesn't matter; I wasn't complaining about banning smoking on public property, I was complaining about how labels and the slow push to ban smoking in public places, even removing designated areas.
I not trying to make an argument that second hand smoke isn't bad (in fact, I said as much); what I said was that the labeling and banning smoking in certain places put the public in the mindset to accept prohibiting smoking in private establishments, like bars and restaurants. Now that we have those bans, the public are will to keep pushing, and it's been suggested to ban smoking even one's own private residence (under certain circumstances, like if it's an apartment or other multi-family dwelling).
Does second hand smoke penetrate through two layers of drywall and insulation?
The point here is that these games are already labeled as T and M; that is enough. You are then at the level where an adult gets to decide to play an M rated game, just like an adult (even if stupidly so) decides to destroy his health by smoking just so he can look cool... it's a stupid thing to do, it's a waste of money, and I don't know anybody that has become addicted to smoking that hasn't subsequently regretted it; but it's your body and you can decide what to do with it, regardless of how idiotic it may be.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
ZOMG! This "Jimi Hendrix" ripped off Huey Lewis!? ZOMG!
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
I say let them do it.
They did it with music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_Advisory) and the sales sky rocketed.
No. That's already there, that's the T mentioned in the summary/article.
This is different: It's a wild claim without basis. WORSE, it's a reworded bible quote, sneaked on there. Violence begets violence. That's most likely where they got that "link", but if they admit they can't use congress to FORCE THEIR VIEWS ONTO OTHER PEOPLE, which is the point here.
No one is forcing any warnings on their christian rap albums (exposure to inane cultural content has been linked with low intelligence), they can leave the rest of the world well enough alone.
But the "parental advisory" part is already on there, with the bold black and white logo in the corner and everything.
It's just not enough, it'll never be enough, they want to outright ban the things they don't like, and since they live in a country with freedom of religion, they can't do that in plain view, so they sneak in and wedge their beliefs in the law anyway they can.
And this won't be enough if it passes. It'll never be enough, not as long as people get to have opinions that differ from theirs, they won't tolerate that. Ever.
You can't take the sky from me...
I'm find with a warning label...just as soon as they run a statistical, scientifically sound set of studies on the subject. Labels are all well and good, more info is better, as long as there is real science behind it and not just dumbass political agendas.
The problem is, that cigarettes (not pure tobacco. cigarettes!) are more addictive than heroin. That's no joke. Look it up. Most people think it's just a light drug, because of the weak effects it has, compared to other drugs. But it's just that cigarettes have an extremely bad addictiveness/effect ration, because of the 600+ substances that intentionally got added to the tobacco, to make it impossible for you to stop.
You wouldn't happen to know where I could get a list of those ingredients? There's something in there I'm hypersensitive to: I can smoke cigars just fine, but one puff from a modern manufactured cigarette will make me sick, really sick and really fast.
I know some of what they put in there, like arsenic for "flavor" (i.e. enhanced nicotine absorption and/or retention), but I'd love to know what else.
What is his political affiliation? I'll guess Democrat.
Actually the results of studies linking video games and aggression have been posted on Slashdot (you can find a lot of studies wit Google). Also I'm not biased, I clearly said it pointed both ways and I obviously mentioned that there is a chance that a child that is too young will imitate what is seen on any media. Also, I speak from personal experience (both with knowledge of psychology/statistics and my own observations). One thing I have noticed is that the "aggression" in video games is caused by loosing. When football fans show violence, it's not because violent media has a direct play in it, it's because the ref made a bad call, or some player made a dumb move.
I took your advice and googled it, and the first hit which came up was from the American Psychological Association:
http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html
I want to counter what you wrote with what the APA says.
You wrote: "Experiments have pointed both ways"
The APA says:
Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).
You wrote: "many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation"
The APA says:
Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.
Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.
You wrote: "the 'aggression' in video games is caused by loosing"
The APA says:
Myth 10. Arousal, not violent content, accounts for video game induced increases in aggression.
Facts: Arousal cannot explain the results of most correlational studies because the measured aggression did not occur immediately after the violent video games were played. Furthermore, several experimental studies have controlled potential arousal effects, and still yielded more aggression by those who played the violent game.
You wrote: "this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data" And then you also wrote: "I'm not biased". In other words, you're completely objective, but anyone who disagrees with you is biased?
I'm completely willing to accept that there are studies which refute a theory that you hate. But you need to pony up those studies and explain to me why the APA disagrees with you so strongly. It seems to me that you are in the weaker position, especially given these psychological facts:
1. Humans ape behavior that they see other humans perform (modeling).
2. Humans will perform a behavior more often if they are rewarded for it.
3. Violent video games ever more closely approximate humans performing violence on humans and reward players
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Like the "Explicit Lyrics" warning sticker on music, it will probably increase sales.
I guess he's OK with putting labels on things without any proof, so let's put this label on cars: "Starting this vehicle will cause catastrophic global warming."
We could all use some more aggressiveness - hopefully, along with enough tolerance that we don't all go out and shoot each other - but that doesn't necessarily follow aggressive behavior.
Aggressively pursuing some goal can be very good for people. I'm not sure why it has received such a bad name. Maybe it's just another symptom of a lazy, cowardly nation.
http://www.unfocus.com/
WARNING: Excessive exposure to the world and other violent organisms has been linked to aggressive behavior.
Violence isn't new, and it most certainly predates videogames.
Except that more and more people are actively engaged in gaming.
Heck, don't most Wii-pologists keep pointing to how the "hardcore gamer" is irrelevant thanks to grandma and grandpa playing Wii-bowling on their new Wii?
To be fair, I examined a "con" link, one that you would favor. The page is here:
http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html
And PBS claims:
2. (myth) Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression.
(fact) Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, "media effects." This research includes some 300 studies of media violence. But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds. In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context. Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand. Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played. Most studies found a correlation, not a causal relationship, which means the research could simply show that aggressive people like aggressive entertainment. That's why the vague term "links" is used here. If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor - when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences â" which can contribute to anti-social behavior. But no research has found that video games are a primary factor or that violent video game play could turn an otherwise normal person into a killer.
There are many things to say about PBS's critique.
1. PBS says, "Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, 'media effects.' This research includes some 300 studies of media violence."
PBS calls it "relatively narrow" as a comparison to other fields of study, but it's really a way to spin the body of research as small and insignificant. But 300 studies is 300 studies. How many studies did PBS conduct?
2. PBS says, "But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds."
Which studies? On what grounds? On what basis does PBS say that they are "inconclusive" when the APA's conclusions are plain for all to see? PBS does not say. This is a sweeping judgment of a body of research that comprises 300 studies.
3. PBS says, "In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context."
And what psychological effect would that have? PBS does not say. And which studies does this apply to? PBS does not say.
4. PBS says, "Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand."
Media is frequently "consumed" by people who would not "normally consume" it. Furthermore, on what psychological basis "understanding" media, specifically as it relates to witnessing acts of violence, germane? PBS does not say.
5. PBS says, "Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played."
The APA says:
Myth 3. Laboratory experiments are irrelevant (trivial measures, demand characteristics, lack external validity).
Facts: Arguments against laboratory experiments in behavioral sciences have been successfully debunked many times by numerous researchers over the years. Specific examinations of such issues in the aggression domain have consistently found evidence of high external validity. For example, variables known to influence real world aggression and violence have the same effects on laboratory measures of aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 1997).
6. PBS says, "If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor - when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences â" which can contribute to anti-social behavior."
I think the APA's consensus is pretty clear. Go here:
http://search3.apa.org/
Type
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Thats the part that sickens me the most about Obama winning.
A Democratic Congress pushed the deregulation of the lending market and pushed initiatives like this that created the "housing/mortgage meltdown", yet not a single word of this was breathed about pre-election.
Instead, both the media and the Dems were up there screaming that the current financial crisis was all Bush's fault, and the public bought it, hook line and sinker, and that was what pushed a lot of the boarder-line states over.
Between that, and some of his appointments since (lets all welcome the RIAA sock-puppet to the DoJ :/ ), I say those who voted for him deserve what they get.
I'd love to viddy an FPS game called "Milk and Droogies." With a bit of the old Ludwig Van as the soundtrack. Real horrorshow, that would be.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Something else to point out is this type of warning label wouldn't affect online sales. Physical retail stores will start looking like death dealers though. Parents will see the labels as proof that it causes violence and warm up parents to idea that banning games is good.
also the pirating of games will go up (because parents will not let their kids buy the games), and up even more if the games are banned.
http://www.asofterworld.com/clean/gta.jpg
So, never then? That's what I'm getting here...
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
The problem is, that cigarettes (not pure tobacco. cigarettes!) are more addictive than heroin.
Yes, addictiveness is a scalar quantity. Just like video games are more addictive than crack because more people abuse video games than abuse crack...
Come on, nicotine is highly addictive, but nobody dies from quitting cold turkey.
Sex, drugs, guns, etc... also lead to aggressive behaviors. Let's label everything. What about the latest trends for Christmas - remember beanie babies and Tickle Me Elmo? Didn't people die over those too. Seriously...
What about the power of love of power?
I smoke. Not proud of it, but I do. Tried to quit, but haven't yet.
Now then. As to the addictiveness, I can attest. They are very addictive, although my anecdotal experience suggests that it's different for everyone depending on your chemistry.
No, we smokers are not getting tricked. We know exactly what we're doing, and choose to do it anyway. We are not five year olds here. Now, if cigarettes are being sold to minors, that's one thing, and whoever's doing the selling should be punished. But there is a line between child and adult. Let's stop blurring that line and respect it.
Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
I propose to require the senator to wear a label that reads "WARNING: Lack of brain has been linked to proposing stupid bills"
I don't think that your child should play GTA. In my initial post, I was clear to state a young enough child will simply imitate what is done on the video game. What I am saying is that in my view (as a student in progress to becoming a scientist), the results are inconclusive as to whether or not aggressive behavior can stem from violent video games. I have yet to see a decent controlled experiment that has lasted up to a year (though in my opinion it should last decades to be 100% conclusive) that has many different conditions to rule out any other factor (as well as a control) that hands down points in one direction. To be fair, I haven't looked, but my psychology teacher (who agrees with me) keeps me posted on these kinds of things, and brings up interesting experiments quite frequently into conversations. I'll make sure to inquire if anything new has come up, but I doubt it. Either way, we are not at a point where we can start allocating tax dollars on this crap. Also, we're not at the point where we should be sewing companies based on this (my main source of anger at these experiments), especially not when it is the responsibility of parents to control what influences their children, and I think we can both agree on this.
Help fight spam
Nono, gfxguy, I agree with how this legislation creep is being abused. I'm just saying that rules regarding things that harm others can be more strict than regarding those things that harm only yourself.
;)
I have no doubt in my mind that the weasels trying to pass this warning label silliness through have no clue what they're talking about and probably also believe that the earth is 6000 years old.
I also find it likely that this is a reaction to some stupid pressure group where noone is literate enough to read the psychological studies which all indicate that there is no established causal link suggesting that gaming makes you more violent (and yes, I can get real peer review articles on the matter, "Anonymous Coward" who posted above, I can also explain the long words).
There is also statistical evidence which shows that you (and I) are less likely to die by violence now than at any other point in human history(this is easy enough to find, have fun Mr."AC"). Which goes to show how wrong that legislative moron is.
Oh, and "Anonymous Coward" up above, here is a link for you to read. It has long and complicated words. If you have problems reading it onscreen you could print it out and shove it up your urethra
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/2/9/
That is just one of the interesting articles on this matter, what I stated in the earlier post was a really big simplification.
Sorry to offend anyone with foul language, (except of course Mr. AnonymousCoward, fucking sign in and comment under your login name or get shat upon) just need to vent, and what better venue than slashdot
just in case you missed my diatribe against those who answer pretty legitamate posts posting as Anonymous Coward. Here's one article for you. If your little Anonymous ass starts bleeding from reading it, shove a tampon in it.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/2/9/
Next time, please comment under your login name. People are more friendly towards you then (at least I would be). Your halfwit comments about "opening my flap" are unnecessary, asking for sources is perfectly legit. Just ask next time, instead of being a jerk.
I don't think that your child should play GTA. In my initial post, I was clear to state a young enough child will simply imitate what is done on the video game. What I am saying is that in my view (as a student in progress to becoming a scientist), the results are inconclusive as to whether or not aggressive behavior can stem from violent video games. I have yet to see a decent controlled experiment that has lasted up to a year (though in my opinion it should last decades to be 100% conclusive) that has many different conditions to rule out any other factor (as well as a control) that hands down points in one direction. To be fair, I haven't looked, but my psychology teacher (who agrees with me) keeps me posted on these kinds of things, and brings up interesting experiments quite frequently into conversations.
I understand you, and I think it's fair to be skeptical. That said, go to the APA site and type in "video games" into the search box. They seem pretty one-sided on this issue. Do you think that carries any weight?
Either way, we are not at a point where we can start allocating tax dollars on this crap. Also, we're not at the point where we should be sewing companies based on this (my main source of anger at these experiments), especially not when it is the responsibility of parents to control what influences their children, and I think we can both agree on this.
You and I are in complete agreement. If video games can have harmful effects on the psychology of children (and I think you and I agree that they can, given that you agree with me that my elementary school child should NOT play Grand Theft Auto), then parents ought to know about it. This is an issue of education, not tax dollars and definitely not lawsuits. But as long as it's an issue of education, I can't stand idly by while people say "playing GTA is harmless". I'm not looting anyone's tax dollars or suing anyone, and I strongly oppose anyone who wants to do that.
And, yes, I'm a little freaked out by lazy parents who don't give a shit and let their idle sons play games like "Grand Theft Auto". My son knows what it is and would *love* to play it, but he knows very well that I don't approve of him playing violent games or drawing violent pictures or engaging in violent play. A few years ago he found porn on DVD at a friend's house and watched it. (It belonged to his friend's dad.) And while I bemoan the fact that my son's innocence was taken away all at once and so quickly, I don't think that is nearly as harmful as my son being exposed to a video game like Grand Theft Auto, where you rack up points for kidnapping and murdering people in very life-like situations.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Yup. I absolutly 100% believe that reselling packaged tobacco should be illegal. Ditto pot, for that matter.
But if you want to grow it at home, smoke it, and/or sell it directly to buyers, be my guest. No farms over five acres. No corporate owners/growers, no franchises. No reselling. No employees. Grower to consumer only.
When I was 13, if a game came with a warning saying that it could encourage aggressive behavior, I'd want it even more.
Hell, even at 24 if I had a choice between the same game I'd get the box that had the warning that the game may cause aggressive behavior .
yeah -- we shouldn't sew 'em! Needles cost money!
Karma is for whores
Well, it would be funny if they labelled Wii Fit like that...
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
I know this conversation is a bit past its shelf life, but I felt the need to share a bit more about my opinion. The main reason I think your child should not play GTA is because of the moral corruption, not the violence. If there should be a warning on games, it should read, warning: children do not come with the knowledge of the moral implications of their actions. That being said, it's damn near impossible to keep such media from reaching your child (as the porn DVD has shown you). If you do have some time to spare, you should do some research on video games with reasonable violence that rewards "good" actions such as diplomacy, and downplays violence to be only a last resort for defending, since it could loose you potential allies. I would highly recommend that you purchase "Black and White 2", and sit down with him and make sure that he attempts to become a benevolent (as opposed to malevolent) deity. It's similar to how my dad got me a playboy magazine when I was younger. I know it sounds controversial, but my dad explicitly chose a magazine that simply had beautiful topless women in dignified poses with no text on sex. I honestly think there's no harm in nudity, but there is in the strong sexual content that is scattered throughout the web, and that magazine kept me from looking for it for a long time (believe me he WILL stumble upon it). I know you'll most likely want to continue debating (and probably chew me out for telling you how to raise your kid), so just add me to your friends list on slashdot and we can continue via email.
Help fight spam
I know this conversation is a bit past its shelf life, but I felt the need to share a bit more about my opinion. The main reason I think your child should not play GTA is because of the moral corruption, not the violence.
This is where the conversation becomes deeper and more psychological. What is the line between moral corruption and violence? And, furthermore, is a child capable enough of understanding that not all violence is immoral?
For instance, were allied soldiers behaving immorally when they shot German soldiers? Meaning, if my son plays any number of WWII shooters, then is the violence "acceptable" because it involves winning by means of being an Allied soldier killing Germans? Or will that kind of play end up having a corrupting effect (aggression) anyway? I'm torn on this, but I lean toward "no violence".
(A more poignant example of moral violence that is beyond the scope of this discission is: Is a woman immoral for shooting a man trying to rape her?)
If there should be a warning on games, it should read, warning: children do not come with the knowledge of the moral implications of their actions. That being said, it's damn near impossible to keep such media from reaching your child (as the porn DVD has shown you). If you do have some time to spare, you should do some research on video games with reasonable violence that rewards "good" actions such as diplomacy, and downplays violence to be only a last resort for defending, since it could loose you potential allies. I would highly recommend that you purchase "Black and White 2", and sit down with him and make sure that he attempts to become a benevolent (as opposed to malevolent) deity. It's similar to how my dad got me a playboy magazine when I was younger. I know it sounds controversial, but my dad explicitly chose a magazine that simply had beautiful topless women in dignified poses with no text on sex. I honestly think there's no harm in nudity, but there is in the strong sexual content that is scattered throughout the web, and that magazine kept me from looking for it for a long time (believe me he WILL stumble upon it). I know you'll most likely want to continue debating (and probably chew me out for telling you how to raise your kid), so just add me to your friends list on slashdot and we can continue via email.
I won't chew you out because what you're suggesting is kind and helpful instead of condemning and critical.
Since I am a gay adoptive parent, I don't have the luxury of being merely a good parent. I have to be better than all the straight parents. This is because whatever troubles my son has are going to be attributed to his not having a "normal" family by some people. I dislike having that kind of pressure, but I accept the consequences of my choices. I don't think my son is ready for such an open-ended game like Black and White 2 yet. I have actually considered letting him watch the movie "Grave of the Fireflies" recently to show him that war isn't like a video game. Anyway, sorry to get too personal, but it's only to show you that I put deep consideration into the type of media that my son is exposed to. Is it impossible to have complete control over what he sees? Of course not. But I just don't have the latitude to be blase about it because the stakes are so high. Thanks for listening, and I hope you understand why I take all of this so seriously.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Are you sure that wasn't Huey Lewis?
I can always tell when a nasty politician is a Democrat because the slashdot summary neglects to mention his party affiliation... but if it is a nasty republican it is mentioned. Funny, huh?
I was with you until now. I'm an avid videogame player. I'm also an uncle. I've always been supportive of the ESRB. I'm not ignorant enough to claim that there is not some evidence to suggest that children may be affected by violent videogames. I'm certainly not ignorant enough to claim there is equal evidence to the contrary. But this really isn't an issue simply about what impact violent videogames have on children. It's an issue about government interference.
I'm not one of those people who are inherently against government interference. I think most (but not all) government limitations are justified. Surely letting 5-year-olds drive would be a mistake. On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that marijuana is any more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes. As you can see, I tend not to think in general idealisms. I've always been more comfortable recognizing the gray area then pretending it doesn't exist.
So for me, justifying an action such as the government placing warning labels on videogames is much more complex than simply determining whether or not videogames can be linked to increased aggression in children. There are many, many other issues to consider. Here's a few:
1. Are videogames a significant public threat?
Well, there's a good chance they cause increased aggression in children, but how many long-term studies have been done? Is there enough to justify government intervention? To what extent does this increased aggression manifest itself? If it leads to a significant increase in the potential for one to commit a violent crime, then sure, slap a label on there. But if it merely makes someone more likely to give someone the finger on the highway, then I'm really not that concerned. Frankly, there's not a lot of research (that I am aware of) that predicts how this aggression might manifest itself.
2. Is there a precedent for government interference in media?
Well, sure there is. In my state, it's illegal for a person under the age of 18 to buy pornographic material. The FCC also regulates and censors publically accessible broadcasts. But in my view, videogames are closer in practice to the music and movie industry. While it has been argued that the affects of videogames might be increased because the player is initiating the violence rather than simply viewing it, the research to support that seems sketchy at best.
3. What doors does this open?
There are people that don't see any problem with placing a label on videogames. It can't hurt, can it? How can it be bad for the government to stick a warning label on a videogame? Placing a warning label on a videogame is equal in my eyes to a condemnation of the work it's placed on. What gives the government the right to decide that one videogame is violent enough to warrant the label and another is not? Does Halo have as much affect on aggressive behavior as Grand Theft Auto? Laws tend to be as concrete as possible. Defining what constitutes "dangerous enough to be labeled" seems highly ambiguous to me. I'm extremely weary of government passing judgment on media, even if it seems to be something as harmless as a label.
4. Would the label even be affective?
The games already have labels that suggest their content. How would a government label fair better.
5. Can we justify the tax expense?
Despite what you think, this IS an issue of tax dollars. Believe it or not, creating an organization to review EVERY game and determine if it is violent enough to necessitate a warning would probably be very expensive.
I'm not a scientist. I don't read a lot of journals on the subject, so maybe I'm just ignorant. But I have a hard time believing the harm associated with video games is SO severe that it should necessitate government interference. Call me a skeptic if you must.
And he didn't cause much harm to the country, unlike his successors (I can't wait to see the Obama debacle).
That's clearly debatable.
So a well-laid president who doesn't fuck up the economy or practice neo-fascist politics is fine by me.
He got his dick sucked by a great big fat girl, it would be ok if she was at least pretty but she wasn't. That's not exactly well-laid.
None of that would have mattered if he hadn't perjured himself and encouraged other people to do it as well.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Baca indeed.
I am not devoid of humor.
Well, I did hear a comedian once make a joke along the lines of "his idol, JFK, was banging Marilyn Monroe...he's banging Marilyn Manson. Come on, you're the President of The United States, not the the International House of Pancakes...at least bang a hostess from Applebee's!".
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.