More Game Censorship From the Left

[swansont]

Not that I agree with what this group is doing, but they are technically still in keeping with Constitutional free speech. They aren't asking for a law to be passed, they're simply petitioning Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart, of course, has a right to decide whether or not to acquiesce.

 

You know, you're absolutely right. In reading several posts in quick succession, I had missed this.

[ParanoiA]

Not that I agree with what this group is doing, but they are technically still in keeping with Constitutional free speech. They aren't asking for a law to be passed, they're simply petitioning Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart, of course, has a right to decide whether or not to acquiesce.

 

I don't think anyone is questioning their tactics, rather their view. I appreciate their keeping it a consumer/market thing rather than trying to pass laws and strip our rights away. And I also disagree with their position on it.

[Pangloss]

Not that I agree with what this group is doing, but they are technically still in keeping with Constitutional free speech. They aren't asking for a law to be passed, they're simply petitioning Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart, of course, has a right to decide whether or not to acquiesce.

 

Riiiiiight. Because we all know that's how special interest groups work, just calmly informing corporations of their grievances, then politely sitting back and letting them make their own choices, respecting their right to make their own choice. That's surely what will happen here! They were "simply petitioning"! That's all!

 

Why, I'm sure this story leaked to the media purely through some bizarre accident! They probably didn't even want us to know about this minor complaint, since they surely assumed WalMart would take care of it all on their own, without any need for fuss and bother.

 

Yes, that must be it.

[Dak]

That's some pretty substantial hair-splitting that you and Dak are doing. Do you think the average 12-year-old is capable of making that kind of distinction? Or is it more likely that they just think GTA is "cool"?

 

We've already got our Columbine for the GTA side of that argument. When some kids decide to shoot their classmates because they don't want them to be "Left Behind", will you consider that proof of the accuracy of your statement, but dismiss Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris as exceptions and kooks? Just curious.

 

no. if someone murders their classmates then it's their fault, not computer game's. if 'they did it' because of a computer game, then it's still their fault, not the computer game's. after all, lots of people manage to play the games without going postal.

 

the difference, i suppose, could be seen as 'intent'. the makers of GTA intended to use violence (criminality, whores, whatever) to sell a game. the makers of LB seem to have intended to use a computer game to sell religious violence and intolerance.

 

unless the game has subliminal messages or something, that still doesn't stop it being an individual's fault if they descide to emulate the game.

[Sisyphus]

Riiiiiight. Because we all know that's how special interest groups work, just calmly informing corporations of their grievances, then politely sitting back and letting them make their own choices, respecting their right to make their own choice. That's surely what will happen here! They were "simply petitioning"! That's all!

 

Why, I'm sure this story leaked to the media purely through some bizarre accident! They probably didn't even want us to know about this minor complaint, since they surely assumed WalMart would take care of it all on their own, without any need for fuss and bother.

 

Yes, that must be it.

 

Trying to stir up bad publicity for Walmart by making them look like hypocrites and religious nutjobs isn't the same as trying to get some kind of law passed.

[Pangloss]

You're right. It's worse.

 

Perhaps not in this case -- WalMart may well deserve the criticism. But I'm much more concerned about the sheeple feeding at the trough of special interest groups than I am about the careless creation of new legislation.

[Sisyphus]

I'm not sure I understand what your concern is. The sheeple, presumably, are politicians?

[bascule]

Pangloss, time and time again, you use a category fallacy of taking the actions of certain individuals and trying to apply them to a group as a whole.

 

You got it -- the religious right! These groups are asking WalMart to pull "Left Behind" from shelves because it promotes "violent religious intolerance". It's okay for them to sell video games that promote the violent destruction of policemen and prostitutes, but apparently it's not okay to promote the violent destruction of non-believers. (chuckle)

 

I'm pretty sure you'd consider Hillary Clinton a member of "the left" and she came out vocally against Grand Theft Auto.

 

PNAC was masterminded by a member of "the left", Tipper Gore, and most vocally opposed by Frank Zappa, also a member of "the left". Guess who sided against Zappa and with Tipper Gore on PNAC? Robert Novak, a member of "the right", who appears on CNN which is allegedly a tool of "the left"

 

There are no direct connections between liberalism/conservatism and anti-religiocity, intolerance, or political correctness.

 

Why don't you come out against what these people truly represent? I hate political correctness and an overzealous promotion of "tolerance" too. If you want to make a point against these groups, great! Do that. But don't go blaming the whole problem on "the left".

[Pangloss]

Congratulations, Bascule, you completely missed the point of this thread in your zeal to paint me with a color that everyone here knows won't stick.

 

Absolutely nowhere above did I "blame the entire problem on 'the left'". Simply didn't happen. That's your assumption, and it's an incorrect one at that. In point of fact, I whole heartedly agree that the political right is the primary threat to video game freedom of expression. This is old news. Assumed. Given. So ingrained into the fabric of American society that I think my dog is at least dimly aware of it. So well known that I see no reason to even discuss it. It's simply not very interesting.

 

What IS interesting, however, is that now Republicans are not alone. Given the number of Democrats running for President (a race which requires movement to the center in order to capture moderate voters), as well as the current balance of power in government, with Democrats unable to override a veto or even a Senate filibuster, the fact that Democrats support this particular abridgement to our freedom of speech is quite interesting. In fact I expect it to be one of the most interesting subplots and bargaining chips of the 110th Congress.

 

I'm sorry if that disturbs your must-be-one-or-the-other worldview, but there it is. (shrug)

[bascule]

Congratulations, Bascule, you completely missed the point of this thread in your zeal to paint me with a color that everyone here knows won't stick.

 

[...]

 

In point of fact, I whole heartedly agree that the political right is the primary threat to video game freedom of expression.

 

Well, then you missed the point of my post. I was making the point that liberals advocating PC/tolerance/wholesomeness over free speech is nothing new, citing PNAC. Joseph Lieberman (who I would at least consider to be a moderate liberal) has perhaps been one of the most staunch opponents of violence in video games, at least as far as someone holding office goes.

 

My point was that trying to group these movement in with "the right" and "the left" employs a category fallacy, one you use often and one you've admitted to in the past.

 

I would've had no problem had you titled this thread "More Game Censorship From PC Thugs" but for some reason you felt the need to turn this into a liberal/conservative issue.

 

I could use a similar category fallacy to claim that "the right" is responsible for the Holocaust (oops, Godwin's law)

 

Who is really missing whom's point here, eh?

 

C'mon Pangloss, we're both libertarians supporting free speech rights. I'm a liberal and you're, well, not. If you want to focus on problems like PC/overpromotion of "tolerance"/wholesomeness vs. freedom of expression, you should keep it in those terms.

 

As for this particular video game, I think I'll at least be warezing a copy, if only to provide myself with hours of entertainment (I hope)

[ParanoiA]

Bascule, you're just splitting hairs on this ridiculous "category fallacy" because he's criticizing the precious left. Get real. Most of the ideas we attribute left and right to are categorically incorrect if we're going to run through the list of popular leftists and rightists and sort through their individual opinions. We assign left and right to ideas that have been demonstrated by that ideology as a whole - at least 51% plurality I would think, if we're going to be all exact about it.

 

And since liberals are all about telling me how to live my life, how to raise my kids, what I can and can't eat and blah blah blah - it doesn't surprise me a bit to see them trying to tell me what I can or can't play in the way of video games.

 

The only thing that surprises me is why they're going with a market solution instead of drafting more legislation. Most of the time this sort of thing seems to start with " We need a law that...."

 

C'mon Pangloss, we're both libertarians supporting free speech rights. I'm a liberal and you're, well, not.

 

I've heard you say this before, yet all I've seen in your posts is the liberal - where's the -tarian??

[Pangloss]

Well, then you missed the point of my post. I was making the point that liberals advocating PC/tolerance/wholesomeness over free speech is nothing new, citing PNAC. Joseph Lieberman (who I would at least consider to be a moderate liberal) has perhaps been one of the most staunch opponents of violence in video games, at least as far as someone holding office goes.

 

My point was that trying to group these movement in with "the right" and "the left" employs a category fallacy, one you use often and one you've admitted to in the past.

 

Again, I'm not talking about left-versus-right. I'm talking about the current political environment and what's likely to happen/not happen over the next year.

 

I agree that, in the overall scheme of things, moderate liberals bashing video games (and rap records, etc), is not new. What's new is the current political environment (the 2008 presidential race and the composition of the 110th congress) and the fact that that's going to breathe new life into this issue.

 

Just to give a counter-example, look at what's happened to gun control. Democrats have allowed that issue to languish and fall off the radar screen. They're "picking their battles". And one of the battles they're clearly picking is video games.

 

That doesn't mean video games will be attacked directly. They may simply be used as a bargaining chip at the negotiating table. But they are very much "in play".

 

That's why I'm talking about it and exploring the hypocrisy of this usage.

[bascule]

I've heard you say this before, yet all I've seen in your posts is the liberal - where's the -tarian??

 

I smoke pot and do a number of different hallucinogenic drugs. I think those should all be legal. I harm no one by doing so. Where is the basis of illegality?

 

I guess I'm a mountain hick, but I believe gun ownership and ownership of weapons of many forms, including edged weapons but particularly those banned for specious reasons, such as spring assist knives, butterfly knives, and even switchblades, should continue. I think the "assault weapons ban" is a joke and own semiautomatic weapons which are just a small modification away from being considered an "assault weapon".

 

I generally eschew deregulation and think many systems, including the health system and power grid, should be nationalized out of sheer practicality (maintaining oligarchian control of a particular market doesn't exactly scream free market to me). The power grid is a single, enormously complex interconnected machine that needs to be administered as such, and US health expendatures are wasted on a monsterous bureaucracy connecting health services with a multitude of health insurance companies.

 

But other than that, I think the government should pursue a fiscally libertarian, hands off approach, so long as basic worker rights are assured.

 

But perhaps the biggest issue for me is DRM, and particularly the DMCA. Nobody should be able to create a piece of hardware then sue you for modifying it. When you buy an electronic product, it becomes your own, and you should be free to use it to whatever ends you wish without fear of prosecution. The DMCA essentially says what you bought isn't your own after all, but more something you lease from the company that manufactured it. I didn't sign any fu*cking paperwork saying I leased my (whatever DRM-enabled device) and if I want to circumvent the DRM I damn well better be able to without fear of prosecution.

 

They're "picking their battles". And one of the battles they're clearly picking is video games.

 

John McCain, who I used to respect, is trying to push through legislation which would hold bloggers to the same standard as journalists, with the publication of misinformation punishable as libel, and worse, remove common carrier status for blog hosts, pushing through a number of Orwellian content regulation mechanisms for the blogosphere.

 

Does this really mean that's the new agenda of "the right"?

 

I guess time will tell, but I think you'll find the Democrats have much bigger bones to pick than violent video games.

[ParanoiA]

I smoke pot and do a number of different hallucinogenic drugs. I think those should all be legal. I harm no one by doing so. Where is the basis of illegality?

 

Interesting. I'm surprised you haven't weighed in on the Hybrid Marijuana thread.

[Pangloss]

John McCain, who I used to respect, is trying to push through legislation which would hold bloggers to the same standard as journalists, with the publication of misinformation punishable as libel, and worse, remove common carrier status for blog hosts, pushing through a number of Orwellian content regulation mechanisms for the blogosphere.

 

Does this really mean that's the new agenda of "the right"?

 

I'm inclined to agree. Restraint on free press is something that should always be undertaken only with great care and deliberation.

 

I am amenable to taking a closer look at how blogs affect society and whether some changes should be undertaken. One of the tidbits in Eric Burns' "Infamous Scribblers" that I thought was interesting was a law that was passed in early America (I forget the details of the law) that involved forcing reporters to use their real names rather than aliases (which was the common practice). I don't believe that law exists anymore (some sort of temporary thing, as I dimly recall, perhaps during the Revolution?), but in our media it's actually not neecssary because reporters have a culture of responsibility, and using their real names is an important part of that.

 

Bloggers may need some adjustments in this area. But how to do that without spoiling the atmosphere that makes blogging a useful tool, that I don't know. It's important to keep in mind here as well that formal anonymous publishing also still plays an important role in the media.

 

 

I guess time will tell, but I think you'll find the Democrats have much bigger bones to pick than violent video games.

 

That is, of course, exactly what they want those of you in "the base" to think, at least through the initial primaries. But to win they need the support of moderates. If Hillary is the Democrat on the ticket on November 4, 2008, you're not going to vote for a pro-game Republican, especially if the Repub has a James Dobson endorsement. But moderates might. So it gives her something while costing her nothing. (Sucks to be a partisan, doesn't it?)

 

And frankly video games just don't have much representation on K street. What does Hillary really care about a few inconvenienced gamers who are probably downloading their warez illegally anyway?

 

(I love that irony, btw -- video gamers downloading illegally and then complaining about politicians about game censorship. They deliberately avoid the system, and then think they have a right to voice an opinion about how the industry is handled? Pathetic.)

[JohnB]

(I love that irony, btw -- video gamers downloading illegally and then complaining about politicians about game censorship. They deliberately avoid the system, and then think they have a right to voice an opinion about how the industry is handled? Pathetic.)

Nah, just human beings. I'll bet you get people who never get off their arse to vote but bitch about the outcome of the elections.

[ParanoiA]

Nah, just human beings. I'll bet you get people who never get off their arse to vote but bitch about the outcome of the elections.

 

Actually, until I found out my beliefs were largely encompassed in the libertarian ideology, I never voted and always bitched about the outcome of the elections, the state of affairs...everything.

 

Because, if you're against the system then obviously participating in it makes you a hypocrite. If no candidate stands for what you believe in - or at least without standing for a ton of things you don't believe in - then there is no one for you to vote for. Also, many of us reject the party system - again, another reason not to vote.

[JohnB]

Different thing ParanoiA. You choose not to vote, that is your right. I was referring to those who just "couldn't be bothered."

 

I've been partial to the idea of a "None of the Above" slot on the ballot for a long time. I find that in our system, it's not the guy that's most liked that gets elected, but the one that is least disliked. So, if there was the choice, the electorate could reject all candidates and try again.

 

Let's face it, if both the Dems and Repubs put up known rapists, one of them would become POTUS. We have the same problem, no matter how bad the candidates are, one of them will go to Parliment.

[ParanoiA]

I was referring to those who just "couldn't be bothered."

 

 

Yeah, those really piss me off actually. These are the same people who pay attention to politics about 15 minutes out of the year and have an opinion on everything. I actually blame them almost solely for the joke american politics has become. You don't get salesmen and conmen for office holders by an educated, informed public - you get them from a public who places reality TV above reality.

[JohnB]

You don't get salesmen and conmen for office holders by an educated, informed public - you get them from a public who places reality TV above reality.

That quote deserves to be preserved somewhere.