Newsweek: Conventional Stupidity

[ManekiNeko]

I don't know if you've seen the latest Newsweek, but in this issue the article "Conventional Wisdom" (perhaps the most obnoxious and clearly biased feature in the magazine) attacks Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, claiming that it will teach "little Johnny to become a pimp or a thug". That's funny, because last I checked the game was clearly intended and RATED for adults.
Anti-gamers whine for a ratings system that will protect children from controversial content. They get what they wanted, yet it DOESN'T STOP THE WHINING. When will these imbeciles learn that video games aren't just for kids? And when will the video game industry learn that it's smarter to defend their rights rather than sacrificing them in an attempt to appease parents' groups who refuse to be satisfied?

JR

[Raedon]

when these people die and we are the old generation.

[hamburgler]

aycarumba.

[kainemaxwell]

It's these kind of people who are making it harder to enjoy video games and for ne wpeople to get into playing and even collecting like us...

[Sothy]

Im going to steal a car and slam it into liebermans house then jump out and beat him to death with a baseball bat.

then im going to shoot a fireball at his corpse and jump on his wifes head.

[john_soper]

I had a subscription to Newsweek for a year, it seemed the best written stuff was on the letter page. Also, they always had articles about new rap and hip-hop albums, hardly anything about rock music.
John

[gamingguy]

attacks Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, claiming that it will teach "little Johnny to become a pimp or a thug". That's funny, because last I checked the game was clearly intended and RATED for adults.


That's a good point IF the ratings were enforced (like VHS/DVD purchases). According to a Dateline investigation, 90% of the time stores sell "M"-rated games to underage kids. So kids are seeing adult-themes when they shouldn't.

Rather than have a voluntary rating system that is not enforced, let's make the ratings mandatory. That way like cigarettes, alcohol, and movies, stores MUST obey the ratings on the cover or face government prosecution for selling to minors.

I'd rather see this solution than see the M-rated games removed by censorship and negative publicity.

[maxlords]

Feh...movies aren't enforced except at the theater. The only thing little Johnny pimp can't rent until they're 17 is porn. They can go in and rent R rated movies at most local video stores. Some t heaters have stopped bothering to check too.

If parents don't regulate what their kids buy and play, then it's their own fault...not hte game makers. That's like saying "Cigarettes killed my husband and it's the tobacco makers' fault cause he smoked 3 packs a day and refused to try and quit." It was the husband's fault for not trying to quit when he KNEW the shit was toxic and dangerous. Similarly, if you don't like games like GTA3 (I don't personally) don't let your kids play em!!! If they go over to some friend's house and play it...YOU'RE the one who let them go. As parents, parents don't seem to realize that they're the ones that have the say in what kids get to do. The people behind these kind of complaints are morons.

[gamingguy]

Parents can't monitor their kids 100% of the time. When I was an underage teen, I got my hands on nudie videos... and my mom and dad had no clue. Same applies to games. This is where the law steps in to act as surrogate parents and ensure underage kids don't get their hands on porn videos, violent game, cigarettes, or alcohol while their parents are away at work.

Surely you are not advocating repealing laws and selling beer and wine and smokes to 14/15/16-year-olds? I hope not, because these items don't belong in the hands of immature juveniles. Neither do porn vids or M-rated violent games.

[GENESISNES]

And also, somethings are running about that in the game, you rape women and stuff. you dont RAPE women. My dad came up to me and asked me if i had the game where you pick up women off of the side of the road, and rape them. Where the hell did he get that idea??? of course i told him I didnt have it...(even though I did.)

Also, my mom told me that she heard this guy talkin about this game where you rape women, and pick up prostotutes.

[punkoffgirl]

Parents are as much to blame as the kids, IMO. I think a lot more parents are buying these games for their underage kids than kids going out and buying them themselves. Also, around here, Walmart enforces the age ratings on games/movies. So does our local movie theater. Both can and WILL ask for photo ID for proof of age.


This is where the law steps in to act as surrogate parents and ensure underage kids don't get their hands on porn videos, violent game, cigarettes, or alcohol while their parents are away at work.
I don't know about you, but as far as the videos, cigarettes, and alcohol go, those were things that were already in MY house when I was growing up that my parents owned themselves.

[YoshiM]

It's an ugly thing. On one side of the coin, it'd be nice if all stores checked IDs or didn't sell R rated movies, explicit CDs, and violent video games to kids. However in today's fast food society or Wal-Marts and other super stores, no one has time/money/patience to train the employees or make sure such policies are enforced. While a person is all for the restricted sales of such content, they'd probably be the first person in a packed check out line to holler at the clerk about speeding it up and GO GO GO and that the clerk doing their job was doing poor customer service because they took to long.

However on the other side, how much do we want the government to step in? Gamingguy: no one is asking for existing laws on selling beer and such. Why you got this impression I have no idea. Violent video games fall under that same area as R rated movies, music with swear words/violent/sexual/provocative lyrics, and equal "R" rated novels. When the government gets involved with the control of one media, they can't stop there and they won't. They clamp down on the release of violent video games. Okay. Now they have to enforce the same restrictions on video sales to keep the video game industry happy. Then it moves onto the music scene. Then it goes onto the books we read. See where I'm going with this? It can't be just one thing, it WILL filter down to maintain a checks-and-balances system. Then there's the idea of the law parenting your children. It's flawed. Why? The children are not liable as adults for their actions. The child might get reprimanded, but the brunt of the punishment would fall to the adult responsible for the child. So we are back to square one-parents must actually be parents. Or the children are harvested for government programming and schooling, which would involve high tax dollars and be one of the biggest controversys ever.

True, parents cannot monitor their kids 100% of the time. That's not what we are suggesting. To do so would socially cripple a child. However, the parents need to get more involved in the child's life. Find out what they do, what they like, etc. Be a part of the kid's life, don't just bring home the bacon. Instill proper values. While this won't prevent kids from playing violent video games or looking at nudie mags (hey if they aren't even REMOTELY interested in the naked body, they ain't human) they will have the values of what's right and wrong (ie not going out and raping somebody after seeing a porn or going on a killing spree) and what's fantasy and reality.

[Cmtz]

Yea I have that Newsweek. As soon as I saw that I just put it down and did not touch it again.

[gamingguy]

I have to disagree with your sensationalist "domino theory" of government tyrznny. Purchases of cars, alcohol, porn are all age restricted by the government. And yet, I can easily get my hands on any of these items with proof-of-adulthood. They have not been banned.

There's no reason to believe age-restriction on Adult Games would be any different. The games would still be easily obtained by adults like you and me. Grand Theft Auto would still sell millions of copies... but now only mature adults would see the destructive images not easily-impressionable juvenile minds.

I fully support the freedom to live your life and entertain yourself however you want. But only for adults. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Liberty is a privilege of the fully mature adult mind... not a plaything for children." Our children should have the freedom to buy violent/sexual games... AFTER they are fully mature adults. Not before.

[YoshiM]

Gamingguy: I ain't talking about letting kids have everything they want, I'm talking about NOT making the government take care of responsibilites the PEOPLE should be doing. We're also dealing with two different concepts. First, the "things where you need to be this tall to ride":

Alcohol: it's a enebriating substance that adults over the age of 21 (in most states; the age the government hopes you are "mature" enough to know when to say when) can only purchase. Children/young adults generally don't have the sense of self control in the eyes of the government. It can be abused and can kill you if pushed too far. With this chance of abuse, government steps in. Cigarettes fall into the same category but are seen as even worse-it's been classified as a habitual drug by some.

Cars: You can only drive after receiving your license when you are over 16 and have passed a test. You can get a license without a car, but the age limit suggests the teen should be smart and mature enough to handle a vehicle. However signing a title, registering a car, trying to lease/rent a car requires contract or contract like circumstances. You need to be an adult in order to sign for these things as these are LEGALLY BINDING documents. This same thing is seen on more mundane things like signing up for subscriptions or membership on web sites (usually having a "I'm X years old or younger" then asking for a parent or guardian's signature).

Porn: For obvious reasons. Minors having sex is frowned upon and there's always the stat. rape thing floating about. While these may not be the reason government puts penalties on this, basically it's too much for children/young adults. They aren't mentally mature (again, in the government's mind) to handle seeing such sex acts. It really ain't art in the mainstream sense of it, it's basically video taped indecent exposure and lewd conduct (not that those things are bad... :D ).

Okay now we have the "other" concept: media. This is where things get sticky and becomes a game of "where do we draw the line"? Video games pretty much fall under the same category as movies, music and such. They've been toted as art, expression, etc. just like said movies and music. It's a strange grey area that is open to so many different view points as to how much is too much when it comes to violence, sex, etc. Ratings are there to give people an idea who the movie or game is intended for.

These mediums, expressions of thought (no matter how little plot something like GTA may have, it's really no different than watching a gory gangster movie, it's still an expression of thought) is something our founding fathers wanted to protect as such things were oppressed. To allow the government to take control of a civilian situation that we AS ADULTS should take care of, no matter how trivial it may sound, paves the way for our freedoms to be eroded away. I know its sound like I'm getting carried away with freedom of speech and all but once the ball starts rolling it will not stop and it will be our fault. It's happening now with censorship of music: words like "gun", "kill", any drug word (bleeping out "mushroom people" from System of a Down is just downright hilarious), "suicide" and probably other words I can't think of at the moment are being cut from videos we see on our favorite video channel. Just so that those words don't "influence" anyone. And it's our fault.

Anyway, I've explained myself enough on this. Bottom line: it's up to the parent to raise the kid, not the government. If we need the government to step in and enforce something truely petty (in the scope of government concerns, it's damn petty), we have failed as an independent society. Check your individuality at the door and make sure your barcode doesn't get smudged when they tattoo it on you.

[bargora]

I agree with YoshiM. In Michigan, however, the legislature agrees with gamingguy. They are making sales of M and AO games to a minor a misdemeanor with a 90 day / $1000 penalty. Article at gamespot:

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2907789,00.html

I suspect that the measure (if signed into law) will be overturned by the judiciary (either Michigan's or the US Supreme Ct.) on free speech grounds. The previous Indiana state court decision notwithstanding (i.e., "games are not speech") I think that if the issue is properly presented to a court, there should be no way that the judiciary will finally conclude that games contain no speech, or that the ideas in games are "too dangerous" to fall in the hands of minors. At least, I think that that would be the result if we are talking about violent games. Since the cultural norm in the U.S. is to be hung up about sex (sex is shameful and dirty, didn't you know? :roll: ), I think that the courts would be much more likely to go along with a ban on sales of sexually explicit games to minors.

Since (as far as I can tell from the article) the Michigan legislature is going strictly with the ESRB rating system, which does not differentiate between violent and sexually explicit content (as far as I know), I think that a court would find that the measure sweeps too broadly, encompassing both truly horrific sexual content (bad! O_O ban it!) and merely distasteful violent material (legal as all heck! :2gunfire: ). I see the Michigan measure going down like a gut-shot chocobo.

[gamingguy]

Clarifying (because I don't think you guys are understanding):



I consider a game involving hookers and rape equivalent to >>>pornography<<<... and therefore should not be purchased by minors. Whether that porn comes as VHS or PS2 makes no difference. It shouldn't be put in the hands of juveniles.

[bargora]

Clarifying (because I don't think you guys are understanding):

I consider a game involving hookers and rape equivalent to >>>pornography<<<... and therefore should not be purchased by minors. Whether that porn comes as VHS or PS2 makes no difference. It shouldn't be put in the hands of juveniles.
I guess you mean a game that graphically depicts hookers and rape, right? Or rather, realistic depictions of your avatar raping hookers. And if you're talking about the ultra-realistic digital portrayal of sex acts, consensual or otherwise, well, I'm uneasy about my hypothetical kids playing a game involving that.

I'm still not sure that I want the government regulating the industry with criminal sanctions, though, if the images shown are detectably not real. Should selling Custer's Revenge to a 15-year old be a criminal offense?

Or would you even want text adventures involving rape and hookers made illegal? Is the following sentence pornographic? "bargora is raping a hooker." Or "Cheryl the hooker tells bargora that she was raped the previous week."

As far as whether the status of ultra-realistic digitally generated images, I believe that the Supreme Court recently decided that purely digitally generated "child pornography" created without the use of real children is not "child pornography" under the law. But then, I suppose that doesn't answer whether it's "obscene". I could look up the case, I guess.

We are of course free to disagree. (Bush v. Gore? :hmm: )

[gamingguy]

Should selling Custer's Revenge to a 15-year old be a criminal offense?

IMO: Yes. If Custer's Revenge was a video, it would be classed as pornography and adult-only material. The game should be treated the same.

I find it difficult to comprehend how some of you say, "Porn should not be sold to minors by law," but then say, "Pornographic games should have no restrictions."

Can you guys explain that contradictory stance?

[YoshiM]

Alrighty, Gamingguy, I think you need clairification on pornography. Going with YOUR definition of "pornography": "I consider a game involving hookers and rape equivalent to >>>pornography<<<... and therefore should not be purchased by minors." Now then, you also state that should the game be a video [with above defined content] it would be a porno. Break it down further, it seems you "consider a [insert media form here] involving hookers and rape equivalent to >>>pornography<<<". So Pretty Woman is a porno? I know there are older Western style movies (like 80's) that had rape, are they pornos too? They don't show the actual penetration/lewd acts to bring arousal (as the definition of pornography states), but going by your definitions, these are pornos. Just because it's GOT hookers doesn't make it a porno. Rape is delicate as it is and I haven't seen this item in games since Custer's Revenge (as the object of the game) and Phantasmagoria (in a cut scene, showing how the demons possessed the heroine's husband, no player-controlled raping involved). If you see an unobstructed view of the act being done (not a car bumping about like GTA, the lights going out and your health rising in Golgo 13, not even the censored bar covering Larry doing the prostitute in Leisure Suit Larry 1) THEN it's porn.

Bargora's right, we agree to disagree. While I probably didn't say it outright, I believe the kids SHOULD NOT get their hands on the violent/porn stuff. But the government should not get involved in the restrictions. This is the same mentality that brought on the "caution-contents are hot" and other related labels on coffee cups and whatnot.

[gamingguy]

Pretty Woman didn't have prostitutes AND rape. If it featured a rape scene with views of penis penetrating pussy, then it would be porn. And, it would be illegal to sell it to minors.

Repeating my question: Why do you guys say "porn on video" should be age-restricted to adults only, but "porn on PS2" should have no restrictions?

Basically, I wish clarification on why the Double Standard between videos and games? Why do you think videos should be age-restricted and games not?

[NvrMore]

Pretty Woman didn't have prostitutes AND rape.

But it had Prostitutes and attempted rape, plus it portrayed prostitution in a fair light (go out, get picked up by wealthy nice guy, get treated very well, get paid very well, have fun), surely that presents a dangerously misleading impression to young girls everywhere :roll: , plus there was attempted rape which still presents the motivation and mentality behind the act.


If it featured a rape scene with views of penis penetrating pussy, then it would be porn. And, it would be illegal to sell it to minors.

Now you're changing your argument and adding additional variables to support your case, however the addition of these variables actually weakens your argument because GTA doesn't actually involve the hardcore depictions that you're now basing your argument on.


Repeating my question: Why do you guys say "porn on video" should be age-restricted to adults only, but "porn on PS2" should have no restrictions?

Rather than constantly expecting everyone else to repeatedly define their point and do everything for you (as usual :roll: ), it would be best if you actually defined the argument you're trying to make and tried to stick with it, rather than trying to twist the discussion when it's not going your way.

@Bagora, YoshiM: You're right to agree to disagree, don't expect to get too far with this one, he has a history of wrecking discussions because of his self-opinionated manner.

[gamingguy]

I asked a simple question:

Why should kids be forbbiden from buying porn movies, but allowed to buy pornographic games?

[NvrMore]

You're still dodging.. some things just never change :roll:

[YoshiM]

@Nvrmore: That's why I stopped after I read his response to my Pretty Woman entry. I said my piece and even fleshed it out some. If the person can't comprehend what we're saying, well tough.

I'd just hate to live in their world.

[gamingguy]

I comprehend your points:

- You think kids should be free to buy pornographic games.

- But not pornographic videos.



As for Pretty Woman, I didn't realize it had rape scenes. I was wrong when I said "prostittutes and rape" equate to porn. Clearly porn is more than that. It involves Sex and Close-Ups of body parts which few games have.

Still, a lot of today's games would easily carry a "NC-17" or "PG-13" rating if they were movies. In my opinion, these games should have the same restrictions as movies.

[YoshiM]

I shouldn't get sucked into this thread. I've got other things to do. But dang it all.

Getting off the "pornographic" thing, since you have no freakin' clue what pornography is except for the broad definition in your mind. We'll focus on M-Rated games.

-Where did we say kids should be free to buy M-Rated games? Please site word for word examples from this thread where we actually say that. I don't remember saying it, I said the government shouldn't get involved while in the same breath agreeing that kids shouldn't get these games and its up to the stores and mostly the parents/guardians who should prevent these titles from getting into the kids' hands.

You loved the movie 1984, didn't you? :P

[NvrMore]

@YoshiM: You're probably right to walk away, the poster with whom you're trying to have a reasoned discussion is notably incapable of such due to his self-opinionated manner (and has a history of such). IMO you've made your point very well, don't get drawn in, he'll only drag the same thing out pointlessley because you don't concede to what he believes is right.

[gamingguy]

-Where did we say kids should be free to buy M-Rated games? Please site word for word examples from this thread where we actually say that. I don't remember saying it, I said the government shouldn't get involved while in the same breath agreeing that kids shouldn't get these games and its up to the stores and mostly the parents/guardians who should prevent these titles from getting into the kids' hands.

Thank you for the clarification. You're right. I did mis-understand your view. I apologize.

However as was pointed out earlier, voluntary restrictions have not worked. Stores like Wal-Mart/Best Buy have stated they will not sell M-rated games to underage kids and teens. But as shown on Dateline, stores like Wal-Mart/Best Buy continue to sell M-rated games to minors anyway. 80-90% of the time, these stores ignore their own policy and sell M-rated games to minors.

And parents are either too clueless or lazy or both, to protect their own children. (Sad isn't it?)

My view is that since voluntary restrictions have been tried, and not worked, the state governments should pass a law to make the restrictions mandatory... just as they do with other adult items like videos, alcohol, cigarettes.

Does that sound reasonable?

[YoshiM]

Okay, accepted. Now that that's settled:

First off, ya gotta lay off the Dateline. While they are a good source of news, however when it comes to hot topics they tend to sensationalize. Case in point: they ran a "shocking report" about how children are getting burned to death because they were spilling *open* containers of gasoline by water heaters in basements (thus starting a fire when the gas runs into the heater). They made this big hoopla over it and to *demonstrate* how this can happen they used a child mannequin and a bucket of gas. A BUCKET. They tipped the bucket and let the fuel run under an improperly installed water heater. Flames followed the stream to the bucket and then the mannequin. Then they state how dangerous this is (as doll starts to smolder). Not that any of that has any true basis to real life, but I think you get my point. Dateline doesn't do a great deal of research on a hot topic like game violence and more than likely they hit all of the "bad" stores that don't do any sort of ID check. Wal-Mart and Best Buy are probably the worst examples as the associates are usually no more than stockers and are either not trained or don't think about not selling the mature games to kids.

Yes, it is sad that some parents are too lazy to know what goes on in their child's life. While a law would eliminate a potential problem, it doesn't mean that those games won't get into kids hands. Kids still get cigarettes. They still get alcohol. If the kids want it, they get it any easy way they can. If a kid wants a game bad enough they will try and con their parents into it or perhaps another relative. They may even get an older friend to buy it. What if the child orders a game over mail order and pays COD? How's the poor store clerk to know if the kid is an adult?

The problem goes deeper than violent games or movies. There's a problem in the home. The only way this problem could possibly be fixed is that men and women are temporarily sterilized and have to apply for a sort of birthing license in order to have children. But then again, that steps on people's reproductive and possible religious rights, so it'd never fly.

So to put a law down about mature games isn't going to work on a nationwide scale. It'd be too difficult to maintain and hard to enforce on a large scale. They could draw up the law all ways until Tuesday and it will never pass because it'd be too tough to manage and that any ruling would probably stir the pot even more, given the volatile nature of free speach. The best we can hope to do is contact our local stores and voice our concern. And then, as Crosby Stills Nash and Young said: "Teach our children well."

[gamingguy]

That makes sense. I get the impression you disagree with government-enforced age restrictions on alcohol and cigarettes, because they don't work. Is that true?

I know I've often seen underage teens smoking here at the local bus-stop. Obviously the law didn't stop them from obtaining the cigarettes illegally.

[YoshiM]

No, no. I used alcohol and cigarettes as an example, not a basis to my thinking of government restrictions. If you remember my other posts, these two things themselves are in a class all their own. It's one thing to slap a law on substances like alcohol and cigarettes. It's another to slap one on a medium like video games and movies. And don't mention porn-it ain't media in the sense of movies, though neither is the Carrot Top movie. If there weren't state restrictions (in some states), local stores (ala Wal-Mart) probably would not sell porn anyway as it would offend it's "Family" atmosphere (and why they sell censored CDs and sell movies loaded with F bombs is beyond me). It's trying to put a law on thought and speech, which is what movies and games ultimately are. The backlash potential is too great.

Anyway, I think we hit this issue enough. Look, it's bleeding from every oriface and it coughed up snot on the pavement. I don't know if anyone is actually READING this post anymore. I think we're back at neutral ground with a better understanding of things. Let's leave it die.

And I must say, THAT is my last zenny on this. Nope. No more. There isn't much else one could squeeze onto this topic.

[Aswald]

Oh, really? A videogame will teach Johnny to be bad?

Not the hypocrisy and violence of so-called adults, who glorify guns and wars? Not Rambo 2, which was praised by our President in the 1980s?

Every day, we fill the world with partisan politics, war, death, destruction, hypocrisy, crime, and Lord only knows what, but OF COURSE it's a videogame that causes the problem with kids.