Slashdot Mirror
Valve Will Stop Removing Controversial Games on Steam Unless They Are 'Illegal or Straight up Trolling' (geekwire.com)
Valve will no longer remove games from its Steam game marketplace unless they are "illegal, or straight up trolling," according to a statement from the Bellevue, Wash.-based gaming company posted today. From a report: The announcement comes a week after Valve removed a controversial game that simulated school shootings, following a nationwide outcry to ban the title. Last month it also issued warnings to developers about adult content in games. In its blog post, Valve executive Erik Johnson writes that "Valve shouldn't be the ones deciding this." "If you're a player, we shouldn't be choosing for you what content you can or can't buy," it reads. "If you're a developer, we shouldn't be choosing what content you're allowed to create. Those choices should be yours to make. Our role should be to provide systems and tools to support your efforts to make these choices for yourself, and to help you do it in a way that makes you feel comfortable."
[sarcasm] Does that mean they will reinstate Active Shooter? [/sarcasm]
That's a welcome sudden breakout of common sense. Let's see how long it lasts!
Ezekiel 23:20
As a liberal and libertarian, I'm fine with *ADULTS* having access to any kind of content they want. If they want to take the no censorship, high road they sure as hell need to clean up their age verification system. I play counter strike and BF4(non-steam) with my 15yo. niece and I've seen his game library, and I know damn well many of his games are supposed to be over 18.
First hit of google on how to work around steams age restriction:
https://steamcommunity.com/dis...
> You can buy games on Steam no matter what age you are as long as you set your age to over 18 when a store-page asks for you DoB
So it pains me to say this, but until they fix this gigantic loophole, they are in the wrong here.
The left wants them to ban anything vaguely alt-right-ish, the right wants them to ban anything with breasts and/or penes. Neither side being happy seems like a decent compromise.
Maybe parents can check their kids ages on their accounts? I tend to be unsympathetic to the "you should be watching your kids 24/7" argument, but to verify their ages on their accounts?
Also, what have you done about your niece's game collection.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I too am such a cuckold that I need another man to parent for me.
"Donald TRUMP's minions could create a game where he goes around nuking the world, and oh yeah, it would be on Steam and they'd just let it fly like that."
What exactly would be wrong about that though?
This is a good move by Steam. Give users the tools to block games and devs who are just making the 4chan Flash games and then let anybody post their games. Allow curators to post block lists of the really shitty developers, so trolls lose their intended audience.
The scumbags will still complain though. They'll say that blocking them is censorship and there will much whining and salt, but the rest of us can continue on as if nothing ever happened.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That game has been out forever, it's called Nuclear War and just like in Civilization, Gandhi is a fuckin' dick.
I see my shadow changing, stretching up and over me...
"Mature content" is censored until you agree the view it. Nobody is going to see """"adult"""" things unless they seek it out, so your default adversary is one who really wants to see the content you are trying to bar them from. What possible system could you introduce that would be able to effectively defend against a young man who wants to see titty monsters?
IMO, none. Literally everyone who used the internet being under 18 knows how to get around age gates. The real age gate is the ability to pay for the games.
Besides, why should valve parent the child instead of the parents parenting the child?
I need to make a video game about two anthropomorphize male-identify assault rifles that fall in love.
Spoiler 1: the climax is they shoot up an abortion clinic, and save many God fearing babies.
Spoiler 2: In the sequel the duo solve global warming, and reduce our dependence on oil through an innovative carbon tax system.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I play counter strike and BF4(non-steam) with my 15yo. niece and I've seen his game library, and I know damn well many of his games are supposed to be over 18.
If your niece already has gender issues, this probably isn't going to help.
> I've seen his game library, and I know damn well many of his games are supposed to be over 18.
Isn't this more of an issue of parenting(or the lack thereof)? If you can't instill in your child a sense of what is real and what is not, what is right and what is wrong, then you should probably at least take initiative to keep questionable material out of their hands. Raising children shouldn't be Valve's responsibility.
Silly us, we thought this had already been settled decades ago with the moral panic over Mortal Kombat. Nintendo self-censored the SNES version and lost millions, while Sega raked in the cash. MK II would be released with blood and gore on both consoles, but with the new Mature rating. Parents could inform themselves and choose accordingly, while the choices of consenting adults weren’t to be fucked with.
But nooo, we had new moral panics led by Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkeesion, with the gaming press even cheerleading the latter.
A libertarian would say parenting is the responsibility of parents, not the market. If Steam wants to offer parental controls, that's certainly their choice, but they should be under no such obligation. And perhaps your nieces parents, who I'd imagine know the girl much better than you, have determined that she is mature enough to play some or all 18+ titles? As a left social libertarian myself, I wouldn't want Steam to try to second guess parental discretion like that.
Is a shitty game where you go into a school to shoot kids trolling, or not trolling?
Like, them defining what they mean by that would help.
Fuck off, commie.
I played this game on the Amiga. It was brilliant. Is it still around on other platforms?
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
How will Valve know:
a) That the person is young enough to require a parent/guardian to verify the age?
b) That the person checking the age is actually the parent/guardian?
>So it pains me to say this, but until they fix this gigantic loophole, they are in the wrong here.
It pains me to say this, but you're an awful parent for letting your kids make unsupervised purchases over the internet. (Ok, ok, it didn't really pain me to say that)
Like fucking common sense. Please. That's what we crave.Its time for the degeneracy to stop, its not longer trendy.
Steam should not be a place to express a viewpoint. It's a platform to hook game devs and game players up. Nothing more.
No one is forcing you to buy a game you find objectionable.
The real age gate is the ability to pay for the games.
How so? Banks hand out Visa-compatible debit cards as a regular EFTPOS card these days where I live. Kids over 14 can open an account themselves, but most kids younger than that have the account opened by their parent and they still get a card.
How far does parental discretion go? Too much parental discretion leads to deaths by Christian parenting and/or medicine denial, and "lesser" problems like obesity, malnutrition, alcoholism and drug addiction.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
You're refreshingly open-minded. 95% of people post here seem to believe on of two things;
1. Everything any Democrat politician ever says is stupid, and anything a Republican politician ever says is automatically right.
or
2. Everything any Democrat politician ever says is stupid, and anything a Republican politician ever says is automatically right.
The idea that perhaps people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum sometimes make a good point, or have a good idea, is rare, and refreshing.
It's fun to quote Clinton to people, get their (normally extreme) reaction, then say "oops, that was Trump who said that, not Clinton. My mistake." The cognitive dissonance is visible on their face as they realize just a moment ago they were cheering the policy (because they thought it was Clinton's), then they are horrified to realize the policy they loved a minute ago is actually a Trump policy. Or vice-versa, it works both ways.
Particularly on guns the idea of basing your opinion of a proposal on who made the proposal is extra silly, because 90% of gun owners are Republicans. It's a topic on which Democrats *literally* don't know what they're talking about, don't know the basic vocabulary. There's nothing wrong with not being interested in that hobby, of course. Republicans don't know anything about 1960s culture. Since they don't know what a semiautomatic is, they go around saying utterly ridiculous made-up things like "assault weapon", which sounds like "a series of tubes" to those of us who know the vocabulary.
Anyway, your post was refreshing. Looking at ideas from lots of different people and considering if they make sense is a good idea. I happen to disagree with you on several points, and I think the numbers indicate some of those ideas would not be at all effective. Some of the things you said make it clear that you aren't someone who has an interest in guns - they don't actually make sense if you know a bit about guns, but I applaud your open mind.
The extreme left and the game media (so in otherwords, also the extreme left) are trying to police anything and everything as triggering.
Can't have boobs in a game, can't have women in a game that look attractive, can't have weird hentai sex games (it's fiction you idiots, if you don't like it, don't buy or play it!) etc etc.
They continue to bray and whine and cry over any and everything in the last few years, getting worse and worse. Already the Japanese are starting to censor their shit as default before they even release stuff here, because they know the Western markets are full of easily triggered children.
Note: I do not play ANY of these goddamn games, I'm just so sick of the whining from these people.
If some idiot wants to play a Japanese tentacle in 18 year old girl in nuns outfit game, let him do it, these same people (at one point) used to argue "fuck the media! games do NOT cause violence, it's fiction!" - so what is it? Is the tentacle game making people want to go and tentacle girls or not?
Mamacita's booblies are looking great these days. I think I'd know which seat I'd take!
Do you have any idea how many "Kill Trump" games there are on Steam right now?
But somehow a game where "Trump" nukes the world is unacceptable?
Do you find the gore and sex OK but Trump unacceptable? Then you just may be the problem!
Steam will be removed from apple as they do censorship in there app store.
Back in the day, if you payed with a credit card, you were considered an adult by default. Not sure if that still applies with all the new charge to your phone capabilities.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
It's called Global Thermonuclear War. But maybe we should play tic tac toe, Joshua.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
I agree with Valve that if you want to make a game about school shootings, great! Free expression FTW.
My issue is Steam is so bloody crowded full of absolute shit, I can't find anything good to play and its turning me off the platform. Its been a year since I have purchased anything on Steam directly, more through places like Humble Bundle.
Its a crowded mess full of asset fips and one man super buggy shit that are borderline playable.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
Sounds like a game i would buy. Also a game simulating mexican ms13 member in LA would be great.
>> You can buy games on Steam no matter what age you are as long as you set your age to over 18 when a store-page asks for you DoB
> So it pains me to say this, but until they fix this gigantic loophole, they are in the wrong here.
The problem is that's one of those easier said than done things. How do you create a fool-proof age verification system?
Otherwise an achievable list
Number 2 would get thrown out on second amendment grounds unless you change the legal age of an adult to 21, bearing arms is a legal right for all adults and is not negotiable unless there is a constitutional amendment to repeal the second amendment which most states will block.
Number 3 would have no chances under the supreme court without a constitutional amendment, the reason the sawed off shotgun got rejected was because it wasn't useful in a war scenario.
Number 4: again, raise the legal age of an adult or a second amendment change, dont expect either to happen.
Otherwise everything else on the list is quite achievable. I would add one more: the media should not be encouraged to make shooters celebrities.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
Make sure you have a game website thats yours.
Update that site with news, media, events related to the game.
Make sure all social media and any "game" site has links back to your own site.
Ensure you have your own trusted payment system in place and in use if needed.
Have other methods of payment beyond a US CC company.
Have a set of networks and the ability to quickly change from all 3rd party services to your own networks.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Forgot to mention, not sure about where the Supreme Court would come down on #5 that one I really dont know about if the 2nd Amendment covers ammo, should be fine but Im not aware if it's been tested in the supreme court or not.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
We do have games about nuking the world though. And we always have.
Banning them is new.
I'm not saying Valve should be confirming the age. I'm saying it's reasonable to expect/require that a parent looks at their child's account to make sure it's not set to 18+
Your ad here. Ask me how!
As a liberal and libertarian, I'm fine with *ADULTS* having access to any kind of content they want.
The simple solution is for ADULTS to whitelist and police what their kids are doing on the Internet. It's not like steam doesn't have parental controls. Why not fucking use them?
I suppose the alternative is to abdicate responsibility and blame everyone else for (nonexistent) consequences like a true liberal.
You can buy games on Steam no matter what age you are as long as you set your age to over 18 when a store-page asks for you DoB. I play counter strike and BF4(non-steam) with my 15yo. niece and I've seen his game library, and I know damn well many of his games are supposed to be over 18.
Libertarian? Har.. har... I think not.
You want Steam to what? Demand birth certificates? How are children buying shit on steam I'm assuming with credit cards without their parents knowing? What about porn sites? Should the entire Internet be placed under martial law with all non-conforming countries disconnected at the border to protect *KIDS*? Or should parents stop whining like children and do their fucking jobs?
People like you are the reason we can't have nice things.
You expect the world to raise your kids for you because you are too lazy to check what they are doing or don't care enough to guide them.
The government nor any company should be telling us how to live our lives and what we cannot look at. So, fuck you.
Stupid error on my part. That was supposed to say:
seem to believe on of two things;
1. Everything any Democrat politician ever says is stupid, and anything a Republican politician ever says is automatically right.
or
2. Everything any Republican politician ever says is stupid, and anything a Democrat politician ever says is automatically right.
More likely, perhaps, lots of people have various ideas and points of view that have value. Sometimes "A and B" is the best answer, rather than arguing over A or B.
My kid does the opposite. She almost never argues and almost always wins. It goes like this:
Her: Can you take me to ...?
Me: No, I'm sorry, I'm tired.
Her: Okay, I'll be quite so you can nap. After a nap can you take me?
Her: I want to play with my toy.
Me: Sorry, it's time to go.
Her: Okay, I can take my toy in the car.
Her: I want to wear my new T shirt.
Me: It's cold, you need a warm shirt.
Her: Okay, I'll put my jacket on over my T-shirt.
That's a three year old.
I wish us grown-ups could learn how to say "okay, I see your point. We can address that by ...". Especially our "leaders", why can't they be as diplomatic, and frankly mature, as a three year old? Have we EVER heard this "debate" in Congress?:
D: Everybody should get X. My bill gets X for everyone (except rich people making over $50K)
R: That would be nice, but your bill costs $10 billion. We're already over budget and can't afford it.
D: Okay, the program I proposed 3 years ago isn't working out as well as I expected. We can cancel that and move the funds to this.
Wouldn't that be wonderful? Wouldn't it be great to even ever hear any Democrat or Republican say "we thought it was a good idea, but it's not actually working that well, so we can stop doing that."
Hmm, maybe if I encourage my daughter to keep doing "okay, I see your point, let's do this", perhaps one day should could grow up to make a real difference as Speaker of the House or President or something.
I suppose McCain did SOME of that, as did Lieberman, and that's part of why they got along so well - they respected each other's viewpoints, though they were different.
Better late than never.
but the wrong Zeitgeist.
The only winning move is not to play.
You've already answered your question. Sufficient amounts of neglect or abuse can result in child protection services taking children away from parents who clearly are going beyond simple parental discretion and into the territory of physical or mental harm to children. Yes, there's lots of areas where it can be a grey area, and certainly CPS can either completely fail to protect a child when they should have acted or the reverse and vigorously pursue a baseless case. If you want to argue for a better review/regulation system to avoid these pitfalls, I'm game to hear it. However you look at it, though, we already have plenty of real world safeguards for dangers to children, and the option of parent controls implemented into Steam would be more than enough to reasonably absolve Steam of any responsibility upon parental discretion.
tl; dr - If the issue is parental discretion, look at Steam is obviously the wrong place.
Sure it sounds noble but in the end I'm sure it's just because of the same reason Valve does anything anymore: they're too fucking lazy to get off their asses and do some actual work instead of messing around in their retarded fucking company structure.
Valve exists to serve Valve. It's a playground for its employees. And they treat it as one. Nothing is gonna come out of that company anymore. Fuck them.
A libertarian would NOT say to leave parenting to the parents, but to leave parenting to the children. Otherwise, you are just propping up another power structure. Leaving power to the parents is just as authoritarian as giving powers to the states. It is surprising how often we hear people who claim to want a libertarian federal government, supporting authoritarian states instead. Unfortunately, we don't have a political term like "parental authoritarian" to compare with "federal authoritarian". Patriarchalist, maybe?
But turns out it's the political right the one nearer to their worst aspects. In fact, most neo-nazi supporters are far right extremists.
Cute play on semantics nevertheless.
That's just the thing. Most people who categorise themselves will stick to that category right until they don't.
I'm libertarian right until your unvacinated child plays with mine.
Goverment regulation is socialism right until it is necessary to keep functioning.
etc.
I feel like writing a chrome plugin for Slashdot that replaces "I'm {$political_philosophy} and so ..." with "On this specific point of discussion I hold {$political_philosophy} views." Though I fear it may kill the Slashdot comments section as people run out of things to argue about.
Maybe parents can check their kids ages on their accounts? I tend to be unsympathetic to the "you should be watching your kids 24/7" argument, but to verify their ages on their accounts?
I'm not. That argument doesn't come up until we exhausted the "you should raise your kids so that this isn't a problem."
It isn't the accounts that lets you set an age restriction you should worry about.
Your kid will get messages from strangers asking them to open a link to watch "fluffy bunnies".
You can verify your kids account, but if you aren't watching your kids 24/7 they still have unsupervised internet time.
There is absolutely nothing stopping them from not playing the controversial game and jump onto something else.
You can regulate all sites from a company present in the US, but once you have regulated all sites that weren't that big of a problem to begin with you are left with the sketchy ones that doesn't care about your regulations.
You have two viable options, either supervise all your kids computer usage or raise them so that you don't have to.
All other options relies on all strangers cooperatively agreeing on not messing with your kid without someone out there looking to abuse them.
Do you get intense pleasure from watching it too? Whatever floats your boat man. Those specialist types of adult entertainment wouldn't be available without freedom to share them.
Wait...Gandhi really was a dick. Go read about what he thought of the khaffirs. Hell, go read the whole wikipedia article about him, including what he campaigned for during WWII. So do you mean to tell me that you had a game of civilization that was actually historically accurate?
We have laws for that. I (and most libertarians) certainly don't support abolishing laws against seriously beating or neglecting your kids, ...or apparently giving them drugs and excessive alcohol (?); but we're not talking about illegal abusive conduct here, just video games.
So a student is more likely to be killed by a deer than from a school shooting. Where are all the walk-outs and protests advocating deer population control?
For some perspective on the scope of the school shooting problem, look at the stats the CDC puts out. For 2015, the leading causes of death among the 15-19 year old demographic were:
3,919 deaths - Accidents (mostly automobile accidents and drug overdoses). 282x more than school shootings.
2.061 deaths - Suicide. 148x more.
1,587 deaths - Homicide (mostly outside school, and gang related). 114x more.
583 deaths - Malignant neoplasms (cancer). 42x more.
306 deaths - Heart disease. 22x more.
195 deaths - Birth defects. 14x more.
72 deaths - Influenza (the flu). 5.2x more.
63 deaths - Chronic lower respiratory diseases. 4.5x more.
61 deaths - Cerebrovascular diseases. 4.4x more.
52 deaths - Diabetes. 3.7x more.
41 deaths - Complications from pregnancy and childbirth. 3x more.
A protest over excessive rates of teen pregnancy could potentially save 3x more lives than a protest over school shootings. Likewise, teaching kids not to each too many sweets, to exercise, not to smoke, get the flu shot, use sunscreen, not to join gangs, to buckle their seat belt, not to use drugs, and offering them counseling for depression, would all be much more productive uses of our time and effort than worrying about or debating school shootings. For that matter, controlling deer populations to reduce the number of fatalities from striking deer could potentially save 1.35x as many students' lives as lost to school shootings.
If you want to tackle a life-threatening issue that students face, probably the best choice is suicide. It results in more than a hundred times as many student deaths as school shootings. But when's the last time you saw the media run a story about teen suicide? The only reason school shootings are even on the radar is because of the media using them to play the "think of the children!" card against guns.
We need *more* people to be independent thinks who don't strictly adhere to their political parties philosophy. To stand up and say 'hey, this is where we're wrong' and break from the party in pursuit of common sense and doing the morally correct thing. It would be a much better world. So it doesn't bother me one bit to disagree with other libertarians and say according to my interpretation of the philosophy, not requiring vaccinations fall under serious abuse, like beating and raping, that laws about are acceptable. Libertarianism isn't anarchy that opposes all laws, there's a place for police power, it's just that in many places it goes too far.
Have the system send nudes directly to the police.
If they aren't over 18, they can be charged with creating child porn and no one wants to risk that.
If they send someone elses nudes then they can be charged with revenge porn or copyright infringement and again, no one wants to risk that.
Hey, if FB wants peoples nudes, why not join the club?!
Do you think they would happily host that game? What about a game shooting kindergartners and puppies? Or making the targets only women. How about KillAChristian or KillAHonkey? The latter would feature a shooter who could be black, "Mexican" (whatever that means) or some obviously Asian guy. How would your average AltRight/closet KKK Slashdot reader respond? (sarcasm)I'm sure none of them would be uncomfortable at all.(/sarcasm)
Even though I don't play FPS games, there is one that I would play, and I think it would be a big hit: KillSlashdot. Scrape user id names for all the targets. Hours and hours of harmless amusement.
Why is Snark Required?
If that's what you want to believe that's fine, but don't go claiming it represents a mainstream belief. Parents having no authority over minor children is not in any way consistent with any significant group of libs, and your description seems to place it under the beliefs of anarchists. Perhaps you're just another one of those extremely biased leftists who keep accusing libertarians of being anarchists?
There is honor with valve. They mine your data, require you to login, daily updates, log your playtime, grant you achievements you never asked for. They are horrible
Congratulations, you've just invented the SJW; where it's allowed to incite raping a person or murder of their children because their crime is unacceptable.
This is why we have laws; so there is a common framework for ensuring punishment is not more destructive than the crime. The alternative being, the law is whatever a bunch of vigilantes claim it is; with 'criminals' being raped or murdered.
I get your point; we need to priotise behaviours that have a detrimental progression, such as a lack of vaccination: Not the racist bitching of fat, aging television actresses.
They're really going to reap what they sow with this policy.
As a liberal and libertarian,...
No, you're not.
Anyone can pay by credit card, just go down to Wal-Mart and buy a gift card VISA and load it up with however much cash you want on it.
I only read the wikipedia article, about him and ww2 so I'm not exactly an expert. But, it is what you suggested. In WW2 he campaigned for India's freedom from Britain. He said that they should not support a war meant to secure the freedom of others, when their own freedoms were being denied. He also wanted to see a peaceful resolution to the war, instead of bloodshed. He sounds like a real monster.
The game Active Shooter was removed because the developer had been previously banned from Steam. Msmash is a liar, a SJW, and it's time for this biased and incompetent editor to immediately step down following a correction and admission to lying.
I play counter strike and BF4(non-steam) with my 15yo. niece and I've seen his game library, and I know damn well many of his games are supposed to be over 18.
Was your nephew getting his sex change while you wrote this comment? Quit your bullshit.
Valve is under no obligation to verify age, they don't sell restricted products, and are not even under obligation to use rating systems in the US. Other countries, sure, but Valve also has no means to verify age, and having verification would open up an immediate market where someone can work as a middleman to gift people games for the price and a small fee. It is not Valve's responsibility or Valve's problem, if they make it a problem they'll just get it elsewhere.
So it pains me to say this
Oh, you're one of those soulless real-life NPCs who pretend to be human. Nobody normal talks like that. You are scum and illegally holding wealth. Donate everything you own to a worthwhile cause or a real person and sell yourself into slavery.
A true libertarian would say that parents shouldn't be infringing on the child's liberty, and that free market (the only entity which is allowed to make decisions) will decide what media is and is not suitable for children to consume.
...because the teens have realized that we aren't going to do jack shit to stop it.
It would, but will it ever happen if the voters then vote the person who spent $x billion on the program that wasn't working out of office because the other party target the electorate with a campaign highlighting their incompetence for wasting that money. There was a great episode of the West Wing that provided a great story of exactly this paradox (I think it's Slow News Day). In the episode about reforming social security two of the 'good guys' in the white house staff have to explain how they got a Republican who had argued for years for the same reforms they wanted voted out of office with a cynical campaign attacking him for those views because they thought they could get a democrat who would be aligned with them on other issues to replace him; and now they can't get any other Republicans on board, because even though they agree with it they don't want the same thing to happen to them.
Congradulations. You're an idiot. Google heard immunity and why it is necessary in a functioning society. But you won't because you're an idiot.
Maybe my child falls into some of the categories of unvaccinatable and relies on herd immunity.
Maybe I just triggered your special topic so you just latched onto it without actually bothering to follow the conversation or the point of my post.
As I parent, I take it as my job to look after my kids. They show me the game on steam, and I make the choice if it is appropriate for them. Simples!
People used to go to war when then were 8-9-10-11-12 years of age. In fact even younger children in the modern world participate in all sorts of conflicts around the world. The western world isn't slightly inconvenienced by that last time I checked.
The fact that we arbitrarily raise the entry age of adulthood doesn't mean nature follows. It also doesn't mean that younger children don't know the concept of death and they shouldn't be taught to value life above everything else in this world. So, maybe, just maybe, it's not Valve's task to set arbitrary age limits. Maybe just maybe parents and society, through proper education, should set the priorities and values of the growing population.
Also, this giant loophole just cannot be solved technically unless you force children to authenticate using their birth certificate. Then someone should check its validity and ... sorry, this can hardly be solved technically unless you put a Valve employee next to every child trying to log in to their account. You must realize it's simply impossible.
The same could be said of socjus and social media.
*ADULTS* having access to any kind of content they want
When did that happen?
"extremely biased leftists who keep accusing libertarians of being anarchists"
The parent claim seems pretty out there and tongue-in-cheek. However, with your response, the true colors of the quality of political thought emerge... Oh boy.
"Libertarian" discussion is usually more along the lines of:
"Libertarians, when asked to detail the specifics of their views beyond glowing, nice sounding generalities, claim beliefs that, when their feet are held to the fire with specific examples of the consequences of those beliefs, tend to back track or claim dubious things like 'human decency will mean that that doesn't happen,' or make arbitrary moral proclamations that escape the consequence without actual, logical justification. The positions either turn out to be naive and juvenile, no more justifiable than any other political stance, or turn out to be entirely unworkable in practice, ironically in very similar ways to the communism often presented as a foil of the libertarian stances"
The "libertarians are anarchists" claim I suspect comes from the particular angle that some self-identified libertarians take when discussing unpleasant realities of political stances that boil down to "everyone will decide their own morality" which pretty obviously doesn't actually work in practice and effectively means anarchy.
If a definition of Libertarian simply means "The fewest amount of laws to accomplish a functioning society" then that's workable and something I can get behind, but that doesn't really define a political stance.
Sounds like a fail in parenting. Typical liberal: big government needs to babysit me and my child!
Nope. I follow the definitions of labels. I am generally, but not perfectly a libertarian. The last time I took a Nolan test, I scored 80P+80E. However, if I claim that one human should have authority over another human, I would not use my mostly (anarcho-)libertarian status to back it up.
Trumpism is the new Mccarthyism, and just as before, history will take a dim view of those who were foolish enough to buy into the fear and hate.
Unless they win this time. Fuck.
Nonsense! Their age verification system is bulletproof. That's why they keep making me confirm I was born on January 1 1900.
Such simplistic comparisons are worthless.
Consider that many of those deaths due to deer are because the human involved was doing something wrong, e.g. speeding. And in fact huge improvements in vehicle safety have reduced the number of deaths, which required immense political will and public pressure to make happen.
None of that changes the fact that through no fault of their own children are being murdered with weapons that most countries control far more strictly than the US. Your argument is just what-about-ism.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Well, you can't make the same game about Trump, because it would be children instead of women.
Your just appealing to emotion. We need adults to have more discretion in parenting, not less. This is a societal issue, and fascism is not a good solution to bad parents. Because the state many lives with CPS, which is often politicized for personal vendettas and causes. For every one crazy Christian denying their kids medical care, there are 4 cases of CPS fucking over a decent family with a few minor problems. We need a return to freedom. You fucking fascists are everywhere these days.
Yep he never seemed like a dick to me, more like product of his times. When your fellow country folk are being put down and controlled... Sorry, re-educated, you're probably not going to have the nicest things to say about your benefactors and their wars.
Killing someone is not legal (usually).
So that same thought applies to guns.
or to paraphrase you:
Consider that many of those deaths due to guns are because one or more of the human involved was doing something wrong
Does that mean that Bunker Blaster will also not be published on Steam? Nor any of the other titles shown there?
"Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
Refusal to make a judgement on such things is a convenient avoidance of responsibility and approaches business psychopathy. Imagine living in Nazi Germany while knowing what is going on and making no judgement. Just because you are in business doesn't relieve you of the obligation to be a human being who is part of his social environment. I believe the major cause of school shootings is 50 years of movies pushing the theme of "just revenge," not video games, which are active displacements of the rage and anger that would lead to school shootings, but that doesn't mean obviously disturbing video games like this that callously make money on the sufferings of individuals and families should be allowed by those who make them and those who provide them. Being in business does not relieve you of your obligations to society.
E Proelio Veritas.
Such simplistic comparisons are worthless.
Says the person who then respond to a well written post with links and figures and actual paragraphs... with less than 10 sentences, including a VERY simplistic statement about "children are being murdered" (aka "think of the children", what the GP already called out on)
What's good for the good is good for the gander, so I'll keep this short: what you're doing is taking pages from the alt-right playbook of never play defense.
Man are we going to get this copy paste rubbish upvoted on every Slashdot article discussing a gun? That despite it's obvious faults of attempting to separate school shootings from gun violence for the purposes of statistic abuse?
a student's odds of being killed in a school shooting in any given year are (51 million) / (13.9 per year) = 1 in 3.67 million. About 120 Americans are killed every year by deer [vox.com]. (325.7 million Americans) / (120 per year) = 1 in 2.71 million.
You must be a poor scientist, because you shouldn't compare the number of school children killed by one type of fatality with the number of ALL Americans killed by another type of fatality.
If 120 Americans are killed every year by dear, how many of those Americans are school children?
Maybe the goal isn't to numerically save lifes, but to improve fairness of life and death. If someones dies because he smoked and didn't exercise, then he somehow deserved it. He also got a bit of compensation: the buzz of smoking, and playing Counter Strike was probably more fun than running on a treadmill. Maybe it was actually a conscious, calculated tradeoff between pleasure and risk of death, which you may disagree with, but which you have to respect. By comparison, a school shooting is unfair because it kills people who had no reason to die.
Typical lib-left. Start off saying one thing to create a "I'm cool with this," vibe then do a 180 with a but.
You are the cause of games being pulled, not kids buying them. The fact you can't parent your own child isn't Steam's fault. If your kid is fraudulently claiming to be an adult, that's on you. Grow a spine and delete his account.
As a liberal and libertarian
.
.
So it pains me to say this, but until they fix this gigantic loophole, they are in the wrong here.
You're not a very good liberal libertarian. What's special about games over books? They don't have an age check at the public library if a kid wants to check out Tropic of Cancer, or Naked Lunch. Oh... but those are about sex, and but you're "a liberal". You only have a problem with violence! I see how it works.
The problem with people such as yourself is you're not really who you think you are. You only have problems with things when they offend something YOU don't like. Conservatives don't care about the game... but if you show a booby, they freak the hell out. LIberals freak the hell out over violence.
The true test of being a libertarian is when you don't like it, but you still can tolerate it.
Rumbled! OP is a shill. She's probably one of those that can't bear the thought others can disagree with them, so they lie.
Although this is a good first step, the "trolling" clause really bothers me - really great art is stuff that provokes, just as trolling does - its something that makes people perhaps think In a different way than they did before...
Furthermore it's easy to see why people troll on Twitter and other platforms - it gets a quick response and is easy just to fling some verbal poo to see what sticks. But someone bothering to write a whole game about something? I find it hard to believe someone would put so much effort into something if they did not see a deeper meaning to what they were putting out.
We'll see what actually gets removed to judge how well this new clause works in practice.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Spare the anti-gun rhetoric. Those that murder teens in schools are all adopted boys with a single parent (mother), and all but one in the US history has been on psychotropic drugs. The media doesn't cover that last element, or the single-mother side of things, or the adopted angle.
Over 90% of deaths by guns is gang on gang, the bulk of the rest is cops on criminals. Cops kill more white criminals than black criminals despite black gangs accounting for around 85% of the crime.
Crazies attack in groups all over the world. Norway has had two school shootings, Sweden three. In the UK it's not kids with guns murdering in volume - it's medical professionals.
While you trying to ban guns for a statistical anomaly (whaa whaa will someone think if the children), ban cars, diesel, ships, smoking, alcohol, gambling, flying, road crossings; all of which kill 1000x more than a rare incident by an adopted child with no father who has been on meds for many years.
The Left would have to write the history books for that to be true. But, they don't even control any trusted media anymore. The same side that has to control speech, censor, brand facts as hate speech, and pit people against one another by identity to survive - what honorable depiction of them could even exist without them writing it?
Sex change operation within one sentence. That has got to be a world record or something...
Consider that many of those deaths due to deer are because the human involved was doing something wrong
As opposed to the deaths in school shootings?
That's a fucking weird measure to choose to use as a comparison.
It was up to me what to stock; never seemed a problem. Maybe multinational companies just don't have the staff or something.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Not many deaths due to video games then...
does not have a steam library full of games that are âoesupposed to be over 18â, because Steam does not currently allow AO (adults only) rated games. Further, the ESRB rating is not legally enforceable
You'll be telling me pegi18 doesn't exist next. Legally enforceable is pretty irrelevant to his argument, "supposed to be over 18" doesn't infer legal enforcement of that constraint.
The purpose of the 2a was to keep military weapons in the hands of the people, and to avoid the need for a standing military as it was known to be injurious to freedom (holy shit, I had to write that twice because Google keyboard auto-"corrected" that phrase to "indoors to a few people".) It's obvious that this means ammo too, and furthermore, it means military ammunition like AP or HE rounds. If the supremes say otherwise, that's judicial activism; the authors and historical proponents of the amendment made this amply clear in their writings at the time, so there is literally no room for confusion as to its purpose.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Even if the 2nd doesn't cover ammo, unless ammo is mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution, then the 9th and 10th definitely cover it.
Although there is the commerce clause..
If your niece already has gender issues, this probably isn't going to help.
Gasp! You dare offend zir on Slashdot??
I should have clarified that "the victim was doing something wrong".
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It is highly unlikely that blanket restrictions on ammunition would be constitutional for the same reason under which poll taxes are struck down as unconstitutional. Ammunition bans and poll taxes both restrict a person's ability to exert a right.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Yes, when someone has an idea, but they don't know anything about the topic, and someone else does know about the topic, an effective conversation goes something like this;
Person A: I have an idea that might work, or might spark a different idea that works, but I don't really know much about this topic. What do you think of ...?
Person B: That's an interesting idea. In my home town, we had a bus system. The way that worked ...
We have conversations like that at work. A few days ago I posted a "I don't know much about the topic, but ..." post here.
Unfortunately, since the late 1980s US political dialog is more like:
Person A: You bastard murderer, you want everyone to take their assault weapons to schools and shoot up kids! Why do you want that to still be legal!? We have to ban handguns now, and all semiautomatic machine guns! You murderous piece of shit!
Me: Wow you're an idiot. Take a Vicodin and go get a clue, please.
Some of the change is probably related to the TV news networks going full partisan in the late 1980s. We went from Walter Cronkite trying to at least appear some neutral to one network demonizing Republicans and another demonizing Democrats. Viewers moved to whichever network was aligned with their political views, and the news they see is all demonizing "the other side".
Also the change is how primaries work, in the 1950s, made a difference. Until then, the debate would be mostly *within* each party. People were arguing a particular point, but arguing with people they mostly agreed with on other things. After that, the parties became more homogeneous on issues, with Republicans taking one side and Democrats taking the other side. So now instead of debate amongst friends, people are trying to defeat the enemy.
the shooter enters the Valve office and kills all the employees?
Any thoughts on if Valve could just subtlety give the users information who download this game to law enforcement so they could cross check it against other lists. Maybe we could do something useful with big data for once instead of convincing us to buy ever more Pepsi, and Doritos.
Your comparison makes no sense.
How many kids were specifically killed by deer? What you liked show no age of the people killed by deer.
So.... It's ok to blame the victim now.... because it is expedient to your dismissal of facts as 'worthless'?
Like driving down a road? Since when is that wrong?
Most of the games I played as a teen would these days have been rated 17+, the criteria has really dropped to the point of making ratings worthless. I will not let my 10 year old play (some of) them (ex. Witcher 3), but others I don't really care about. I do not rely on Steam or anything else to make that call, I tell him what he may and may not play. That's the only real solution, parents have to parent, the end. You cannot outsource that job.
That said, the games I most often boycott are not rated MA at all. They simply enable communication with strangers on the internet. Those are banned completely, but it is surprising how many of them are out there. You are way, way likely to be exposed to the most vile forms of racism, horrible and demeaning sex acts, terrible descriptions of violence and just about every other normally censorable topic via the chat systems than you are from the games themselves, which are usually geared toward entertainment. There are lines games do not cross, but people will.
It's a fair criticism that youtube is one of the absolute worst, and it's fairly impossible and self-defeated to ban that, but the benefits outweigh the risks, and normally hte comment section gets ignored. But the point remains: it is the social part of gaming that lately is the most terrible.
While viewing store page for a 18+ game is a loophole there's a pretty large divide between viewing the product page and purchasing the product and the latter contains on a narrow set of paths by which a minor could purchase the product without direct parental consent.
There four sources for paying for steam products. Credit cards, debit cards, steam wallet, and prepaid credit cards. Of these... good luck having enough funds in the steam from selling items on the market place but it might work for some really cheap items on steam. Both credit cards and debit cards cannot get into the minor's hand without a parent's express permission. Banks won't issue either to the minor without a parent's consent and the parent's name on the account because that protects the bank. Even if the minor is able to make purchases with one or the other, why are you, the parent, failing to monitor the purchasing if you are concerned about it? The final method, pre-paid credit cards, is the only one that minors can use to circumvent parental supervision but this posits that the minor has an income flow with which to purchase the card which at this point we're talking minors of age 15+ in most cases.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Can you people really stop relating everything to Trump all the time, it's sad.
It is already fixed and has been so. If parents aren't using the controls available that is on them as guardians.
https://support.steampowered.c...
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
we let hunters cull herds and put fences up to keep them away from busy roads. We also take steps to address automobile accidents, drug overdose, suicide, Homicide, cancer and well, all the examples you cite.
But when it comes to ending gun violence we do next to nothing. We ban convicted felons from owning guns but we leave glaring loopholes in the system that let them obtain them with ease. We allow ownership of weapons intentionally designed to kill people (the AR-15's caliber and bullet velocity are designed to maximize the size of the wound) while regulating how fast a car can go to be "street legal".
You're entire argument rests on a false premise that we should do nothing to prevent gun violence because we haven't completely eliminated all other forms of death. I'm too lazy to look up the name logical fallacy you're employing but it's pretty obvious it's a fallacy.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"I play counter strike and BF4(non-steam) with my 15yo. niece and I've seen his game library, and I know damn well many of his games are supposed to be over 18."
Ok, first of all your niece certainly sounds like he has made some interesting life choices.
Secondly, since your niece is a minor, even if they're lying to steam why the hell isn't their parents doing anything about it? Or are the parents here OK with the M games?
Cause here's the thing. Kids can play M games with parental permission. So if the parents are ok with it, the issue is settled. Maybe they changed the age to download it because they already had their parent's permission.
If the parents are NOT ok with it, why are you not informing the parents about it as a concerned relative who is otherwise pissed enough to be bitching about this on slashdot.
I have a nephew that's under 16 and he has several M rated games already. (I don't know why since he'll still just sit around playing overwatch all day.) but I know his father has vetted the games and he had permission to get them.
If parents are concerned about this kind of thing, they shouldn't let their kid install steam in the first place.
A true libertarian would say that parents shouldn't be infringing on the child's liberty
True libertarians want to be acknowledged as independent persons, mind their own business and do not welcome any paternalistic interference from others. I would imagine them raising their children in the same way, with respect for their individuality, BUT, as long as they are minor, protecting them from influences the parents deem undesirable.
When your argument is based on preventable loss of life, GP's response is valid. Social programs and reforms to better treat those with mental illness would have much greater impact; just halving the amount of suicides would save more lives than completely eradicating death is mass shootings, even ignoring any shootings that may be stopped because someone had access to therapy, medication, or just someone to talk to without being stigmatized.
Your comment is pretty much all factually incorrect. We do not do "next to nothing" about gun violence. We do a lot; the fact that it is not what *you want* doesn't make it "next to nothing."
What you want is to incur huge costs on peaceful, responsible people for very little improvement or gain, and at no cost to yourself. That's psychopathic. Peaceful, responsible people don't agree to bear those costs on behalf of your wishful thinking. Instead, they are *taking responsibility* for confronting school shooters directly. They are indeed lifting gun-free zone restrictions, and that's not "next to nothing:" that's the thing that actually works.
We don't "leave glaring loopholes in the system that let them obtain with ease;" in fact the Newtown CT school shooter had to *execute his mother* in order to get his weapons. That's not "ease."
AR-15s were not "intentionally designed to kill people;" they were marketed to hunters for hunting (and still are).
We do not regulate how fast a car *can* go to be "street legal;" our cars can go as fast as we want on the track, and still be street-legal. We only restrict how fast we *actually drive them* on public streets.
And it's not, "you're entire argument;" it's "your entire argument." You can't even get the most basic rules of grammar correct.
Your comment is all false.
That was a great game, amazing sound/graphics/interface/everything for its time.
It was based on a card/board game; which is also a ton of fun.
Without falling into the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, all you can really say is that a libertarian would say whatever the hell they want.
Just because there's someone who defines themselves as libertarian and holds views at odds with what you believe a libertarian to be doesn't mean your definition of libertarian is correct. There are, in fact, contradicting definitions of views libertarians can hold and yet still be libertarian in both cases.
Though I can't really blame you for this. The Libertarian party of the United States and its members have decided that they're the *real* libertarians and anyone who defines themselves slightly differently isn't a true libertarian.
Your post seems to suggest that people can only choose a single issue to focus on, rather than targeting multiple issues. If someone were championing vaccines to prevent the flu, would you write a similar long post using your data to point out that accidents and suicides cause far more deaths than influenza?
I'm not throwing my hat into this whole gun control debate, but I just don't understand what sort of point you're trying to make with your post.
I presume that something involving Trump nuking the world would be a mod for Civilization.
Is there a way to determine someone's age over the internet?
Most common category of 'unvaccinatable': Parent is a moron that wants to freeload on herd immunity.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
So it's not just the appointed mods who are liberal, we now have to wade through politically inclined trolls who seem to always have first few slots filled with posts on mobile.
I miss the old slashdot before the sellout.
More like...
"Pay for a product release, bash Trump."
"KILL, RAPE AND CONTROL"
Sounds like the forbidden GTA motto.
I play counter strike and BF4(non-steam) with my 15yo. niece and I've seen his game library,
I'm more curious about how his niece is a dude. Not judging, just having met many people that identify as both.
No joke. That dude lives rent free in their minds. No one cared about Clinton, Bush or Obama like they do the Trumpster.
You are way, way likely to be exposed to the most vile forms of racism, horrible and demeaning sex acts, terrible descriptions of violence and just about every other normally censorable topic via the chat systems than you are from the games themselves, which are usually geared toward entertainment.
Do your children have access to their own phone? That's a much worse and more likely contact point. From your list of concerns, consistent with them, your children really should not have smartphones, SMS, chat clients, or email. Literally every gaming platform provides what you ban built in and unmovable. Steam, Galaxy, Xbox, PS network, Origin, all of them have chat permanently built in.
I like how you label things you're not interested in, but someone else might be, as "crap". Maybe we don't like the crap you play?
You donâ(TM)t need parental permission to play or buy an m-rotated game. ESRB ratings are vol7ntarynfrom a private organization and have zero legal impact. The ONLY reason a kid canâ(TM)t walk into GameStop and buy one is that they voluntarily refuse to as a company to avoid deal8n* with pissy parents.
âoeSupposed to beâ means literally nothing. M-rated means the content is generally suitable for those 17 and above. Itâ(TM)s informational guidance. You can do whatever the fuck you want with it!including ignore it.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you that youâ(TM)d let some self-appointed third party company tell you want is or isnt appropriate for you? Think for yourself.
I think part of the hostility in politics started coming in in 1968 with Nixon's "southern strategy" where he and the Republican party embraced the southern religionists and racists. to the Evangelicals what they're doing is a "mission from god" and you don't compromise on that.
True. It is about 22% of that number, for children killed by deer, so 26 children per year, plus or minus. That is still more than the number killed in school shootings, but only by a small factor (~ 2X).
There is no legal requirement on a distributor to carry all content. Valve is not a common carrier. There is still less requirement on a publisher to accept all books. To use a slippery analogy, your local bookstore is not required to carry porn, nor is John Walker Publishing (a made up name) required to accept it. This is just Valve trying to avoid criticism and, perhaps, threats from terrorists.
Oh really? May the money be with u!
The kids were not actually protesting, they just wanted to get out of school for an hour, or however long they were walking in a circle.
Who are these people protesting against anyway? I'm pretty sure no one is for school shootings except the idiots that execute them, and those people don't care about your protest.
I mean, really?
Come on. Really? Do I even have to...I do? Someone posted something as dumb as this?
The only people meaningfully hurt by school shootings are not those who died. Many of the students staging walk-outs are school-shooting survivors. Zeroing only on that number is short-sighted and dumb. Or perhaps you are the sort who can't imagine that having someone walking around outside your door and watching people be shot can cause long-term dysfunction...
That's an interesting idea.
It occurs to me the southern vote was solid Democrat from the time Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 through the time when the Democrats were filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964. All southern governors were Democrats for 90 years, 90 years during which whites controlled the vote in the south.
To whatever extent Republicans started embracing the south in 1968, they were becoming *more like* the Democrats, who had controlled the South for nearly a century. Lessening their opposition to racism would have *reduced* partisanship, not increased it.
Poll numbers bear this out. Their wasn't a radical increase in partisan attitudes after 1968. There was more partisanship BEFORE - the south hated the party of Lincoln and Everett Dirksen. Dirksen was seriously in danger of being assassinated by Southern white activists.
I don't worry about that. I worry about specific credible threats to particular people or groups. Those are illegal. Arguably incitement to stochastic terrorism – trolling for the violent – is a credible threat. In a large enough population you can find someone willing to attack just about anyone for just about any crazy reason. (For instance, the Pizzagate conspiracy theorists trolled up Edgar M. Welch, who fired on – one cannot make this up – the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria with a semi-automatic rifle because of specious claims it was the center of a child-abuse ring.)
But in any event, It is Valve's right to say what they distribute or publish, barring specific law to the contrary.
Trusted media? Like faux news. The bastion of trusted media.
As a liberal and libertarian, I don't give a sh*t what other people do unless its to me or limits my freedom.
Is now claiming they won't remove games from their storefront?
the southern vote was solid Democrat from the time Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1875
Earlier than that, even. Some Southern states went to Grant in the late 1860s/early 1870s, but it was pretty solidly Democratic before that, with the Southern Democraft vote during the Civil War, and a blue block during the 1850s. The Whigs were pretty strong in the South in the 1830s-40s, but the civil war buildup put the South in the Blue for over a hundred years.
Steam will be removed from apple as they do censorship in there app store.
The Steam client isn't available in Apple's App Store, never has been. Apple users wanting a Steam client have always downloaded the .dmg installer directly from Steam, https://store.steampowered.com...
It's "paid" btw.
He is probably the fat weirdo uncle raping the child he grooms with his babby-toy video gamecollection.
His 15yo faggot neice, playing "princess twinkle star" or whatever gay shit they do
Typical stuff. Just two homosexuals trying to normalize their fetishes by pretending it's not obviously weird. Hoping everyone else is just like, "oh yeah your niece-boy". Princess twinkle star who looks exactly like an ugly man.
Totally natural
to regulate gun violence? I can wait two weeks for a gun show (there's a small one about every 2 weeks where I am, it's a major city though) and pick up a gun with zero back ground checks. I could be a convicted felon or a kid with an obvious fake Id and walk out with an AR-15, a shot gun and plenty of ammo. It might take me a bit of time at Mikky D's to save up the money, but I'd be ready to go in about 6 months tops. 3 if I worked full time.
Read up on the history and design of the AR-15. What's interesting is how much work went into making them ideally for killing men. Slower velocities allow lower calibers to do more damage because the bullet spins and leaves a huge wound in the meat. That's bad for hunting, since you probably want to eat that meat, but great for killing.
We absoultely regulate what's street legal. Where do you think the phrase "Street Legal" came from. There are a variety of modifications that are disallowed. It varies by jurisdiction though, so it's possible that your neck of the woods really has no laws.
And that's a lousy cheap shot at the end. But really, it's all you have. Your not a gun rights advocate per se. Or if you are your a patsy for the NRA. The point of stopping all gun regulation (which is the NRA's stance) isn't to protect your rights. It's to make sure there's nothing between the NRA (a gun industry lobbying group) and a sale. We're letting people die so the NRA's sales don't drop a little bit...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Valve Will Stop Removing Controversial Games on Steam Unless They Are 'Illegal or Straight up Trolling'
Illegal in what jurisdiction? US? Any?
There have been 316 fatalities from school shootings since 1998, of which 38 have occurred in the 5 months of 2018.
Over half of those within the last 7 years.
List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
Over the same period of time, Canada has had 7 school shooting fatalities (3 incidents), including 2 deaths which occurred outside of school grounds.
Guess none of you have ever played Rise of Nations
Yeah Trump is the problem.
Hypocrites...
Nothing wrong with that. As long as I can also release the game where CLINTON runs around and rapes women.
Go for it, good luck getting anyone to buy it though.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
a student's odds of being killed in a school shooting in any given year are (51 million) / (13.9 per year) = 1 in 3.67 million. About 120 Americans are killed every year by deer [vox.com]. (325.7 million Americans) / (120 per year) = 1 in 2.71 million.
You must be a poor scientist, because you shouldn't compare the number of school children killed by one type of fatality with the number of ALL Americans killed by another type of fatality.
If 120 Americans are killed every year by dear, how many of those Americans are school children?
The same as the proportion between adults and school children in general. It seems a perfectly valid comparison to me. Children are Americans, but they are no more valuable than adults.
Such simplistic comparisons are worthless.
Consider that many of those deaths due to deer are because the human involved was doing something wrong, e.g. speeding. And in fact huge improvements in vehicle safety have reduced the number of deaths, which required immense political will and public pressure to make happen.
None of that changes the fact that through no fault of their own children are being murdered with weapons that most countries control far more strictly than the US. Your argument is just what-about-ism.
What-about-ism is what an intelligent person uses to figure out what he should focus his limited time on. If practically zero kids are killed from school shootings(1 in 3.67 million) it should not be focuses on as much as deaths that are thousands of times more common and preventable.
I should have clarified that "the victim was doing something wrong".
Well the majority of school shooting victims are bullies or losers, who could easily be said to have "done something wrong".
Not noone, but the numbers of unhinged is currently beyond counting.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
No that's the most common category of unvaccinated. The most common category of unvaccinatable (implying something can be physically not done) is allergic reactions followed closely by immune system related problems.
Mind you I actually know someone in this category. You know what her parents did? Arranged a second doctor to stand beside her with epinephrine while she was vaccinated and then when the swelling went down they kept her for observation in hospital, so even that is a bit of a weak excuse.
Canada is 1/10th the population of the US. On a per-capita basis, they're twice as bad.
I agree in principal with a better age verification process. I think we need to start with parent involvement in the steam registration process the Parent chooses the birth date, and signs for their kids account and sets their birthday so it can not be changed by the kid. It is not perfect, but the responsibility starts and ends with the parent, and all steam has to do is support that in their interface. I do believe we all share some responsibility as a society, but the bucks stops at the parent. Parents need to pull their head out of their arses and pay attention to their kids.
And why yes I am a liberal libertarian as well. (yes we do exist)
Number 3 would have no chances under the supreme court without a constitutional amendment, the reason the sawed off shotgun got rejected was because it wasn't useful in a war scenario.
The defendants were not represented at the USSC trial. The matter was referred back to the lower court for a determination but again, the defendants were not represented and by that time one was dead. The whole thing was a setup.
http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/d...
I didn't say he was a monster.
Yep he never seemed like a dick to me, more like product of his times.
Ah, so being racist is ok so long as you were born in the correct time period. Got it.
When your fellow country folk are being put down and controlled... Sorry, re-educated, you're probably not going to have the nicest things to say about your benefactors and their wars.
Speak of education...actually the English were perhaps the biggest contributor to the fall of the caste system. England was ok with it in general, but they disagreed with a few things: Lower caste people shouldn't be punished more for the same offense than that of an upper caste person, and equal education shouldn't be denied to lower castes. England did rule this country, so they did enforce these rules. This meant that the lower castes could be equally educated to everybody else, and they had just as much capability of becoming wealthy as everybody else, which subsequently had the effect of, over time, all of the castes began to intermingle because the differences between them became blurred. Lower caste members could pass for higher caste members. Different castes began to intermingle, which was still illegal under traditional Indian law (itself based on hinduism,) and communication between them was strictly regulated. The problem for the powers that be was that it became extremely difficult to enforce afterwards.
It's for this exact reason that lower castes, including the untouchables, began to prefer British rule because they were more empowered under it. This isn't at all to say that British rule was all rainbows and gumdrop smiles, mind you, but many lives improved under it. A friend of mine who passed away recently lived in that era, and he in particular was one of those who didn't like it when England left (hence why unlike those who deify Gandhi, I'm able to see it from both sides here, because prior to that I had an opinion of Gandhi that is more in-line with the rest here.) While Ghandi was known as a leader there, to most he was more or less just another one of the political figures, until he was assassinated, thus becoming a martyr. The people who had the biggest influence on England leaving were Bhagat Singh, Nehru and Subash Chandra Bose; Gandhi is further down the list, though it wouldn't have happened if it weren't for WWII. If you notice in that wikipedia link I gave, backing England in WWII had popular support in those days. Major political changes didn't occur until AFTER Gandhi was assassinated, but you don't hear about the unsung heroes that martyrdom always overshadows.
Just look at JFK, he was a terrible president: He was the CAUSE of the Cuban missile crisis, and not only did he put us in Vietnam but his administration oversaw the coup and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, while having the CIA rig Vietnam's elections. Then he gets shot, and suddenly he's a hero.
One tenth of 316 would be ~32 not 7. So 1/5th as bad.
I never said you did. I merely made a sarcastic remark about his character in relation to said events. My point still stands, however. In the context of those events, he was only a man trying to obtain freedom for his people. I'm not saying he was/wasn't a wholly good man, just that his action in relation to WW2 were entirely justified. Using them as an example for why he is a dick seems unfounded.