I see what Hillary is doing (re: video games)

[renaissanceguy]

I was looking through the DLC website because I've never been there before. And I found this article:

Tip for Democrats: Side with Parents

<snip>

For Democrats, the questions from the results of the 2004 presidential election linger.

<snip>

Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, has another suggestion, and one that seems worth considering: It's the culture, stupid.

In an April paper posted on the institute's Web site, Whitehead notes that people who are married with children favored President Bush over Sen. John Kerry by 59 percent to 40 percent.

Yet President Clinton only narrowly lost the married-with-kids group in 1992, and narrowly won them in 1996.

Democrats will not succeed with this group, Whitehead said, until they recognize something: "Parents have a beef with popular culture. As they see it, the culture is getting ever more violent, materialistic and misogynistic, and they are losing their ability to protect their kids from morally corrosive images and messages."


http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253274&kaid=85&subid=65
----------

So, I'm guessing that will be Hillary's mantra in '08: "It's the culture, stupid." Taking advice from her DLC buddies, she'll be pandering to those so-called values voters, for sure.

[Solon]

1. I think we need to update Godwin's law...

Anytime anyone proclaims some cultural issue as "for the childREN!!!!" then they lose the argument.

Whenever BS non-issues like this are brought up, the chances of someone proclaiming the above approaches 1 and they lose the argument, simple really.

[MrBenchley]

3. Yeah, parents hardly ever care about their children (snicker)

"they lose the argument"
Sorry....no matter how much you twiddle your joystick, the world doesn't work that way.

[Solon]

4. considering your SOP seems to be misrepresenting others...

and slandering them, all the while being, not only high and mighty, but damn near insufferable, I don't really see where you would contribute to a discussion between civilized people.

[MrBenchley]

5. No misrepresentation at all.....

You seemed to think it was a big old laugh that parents might actually think something "for the children" had any value, and you wanted to declare "victory" if anyone was sensible enough to point it out in connection with appealing to parents on a political level.

[Solon]

6. For non-issues that have no bearing on how the kids are raised...

Let's concentrate on the REAL issues that affect kids, like lack of good education, inadequate funding for Head Start, and the lack of good out of school programs to keep kids busy so they don't think about doing drugs, alcohol, or causing trouble. Why concentrate on stupid shit like this at all? Adequately funding schools, Head Start, and after school programs will do more good than any amount of pandering and passing of unconstitutional laws ever will.

[MrBenchley]

7. Parents think values do have a bearing....

and it's common to see our gamers deriding parents as lazy, irresponsible, etc.

Just as it's common to see any actual concern for progressive values and morality characterized by your crowd as "pandering."

[Solon]

10. Depends on how those values are approached...

For example, things are changing, for the better in my view, concerning certain things, and I'll give an example with this game:


This is a basic hack and slash fantasy game RPG(Role Playing Game), think the Hobbit or Lord of the Rings type of stuff. Swords, etc. Usually these types of games allow you to be anyone you like, male, female, old, young, fat, skinny, elf, human, halfing, dwarf, etc. Another option, for male players, is an interesting plot twist in this game. As with many games of this type, the gameplay has many sub-plots, and one of them in this game is to rescure a pirate from his evil master. The odd thing is this, if you player is male, then when you rescure him you both can start to have a romantic relationship, and eventually, at the end of the game, this happens.


Now, to progressives, this should be seen as a boon, a "Mainstream" game with open homosexuality and gay marriage in it! However, to many parent advocacy groups and "family values" groups, the game either deserves a boycott, or a rating of AO simply because of the sub-plot. It doesn't matter to them that there is no explicit sex, nor that the game has no gratuitous violence. All that matters is the "gay matter" that's in the game. Their values aren't compatible to progressive values. Other examples include same sex flirtation in "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic." and "The Sims 2" which also allows for marriages between same sex couples.

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/editorials/homosexuality-and-gaming-030082.php

Oddly enough, gamers themselves have more of a problem with homosexuality in games than either the publishers or developers of said games. Though, in some cases, its a moot point, a good game will be bought whether some aspect of it is going to be offensive to someone or not. Though, I do find the idea of playing a gay character, on screen, so to speak, intriging in a way, considering I'm straight.

But the big question is what values should be espoused, but more importantly, what should the government do, if anything, that could encourage this type of stuff? The biggest problem is this, the governemnt can do little to either encourage or discourage this type of stuff. Legally, they have no standing, putting legal "teeth" into rating systems is doomed to fail on a constitutional level. So to say that you can legislate the problem away is ridiculous. This is why I call it a non-issue. However, on the cultural level, you can do many things to encourage fair ratings and enforcable ones as well.

The first step is to actually educate parents on what the ratings mean and why they are there. The second is to have people actually take the ratings seriously, this includes retailers, who should bear the brunt of the outrage anyways, Rockstar not withstanding. The third thing is to vote with the pocketbook, either buy games you consider worthwhile, or don't, whatever is your preference, same could be said for boycotting retailers that don't take the ratings seriously.

Look, as video gaming becomes more mainstream, so do the demographics of those playing video games, so, for example, women are now playing video games in ever increasing numbers, because now the industry is no longer making those sucky assed games like "Barbie" for the NES(believe me, I tried it, it sucked really bad). No, now, the Sims are some of the top grossing games in the industry, a game about life, oddly enough, though if you have a mean streak, you could kill your sim about a thousand different ways. I would never think about doing that though, honest! :evilgrin: The point being that trying to pigeonhole an entire industry based on the actions of one gamemaker, and one hate peddling music maker, is inaccurate at best. Yes, first person shooters are some of the top games. However, personally I think that there aren't enough RPGs out there and too many FPSs.

Not all games can be measured by the yardstick of GTA: San Andreas, nor should they be, games vary much more widely than other forms of expression, so it is rather silly to try to put them all in the same box. Video Gaming is simply another form of entertainment and expression, and given the variety in humanity, it will go to all sorts of extremes. Whether such games become widely accepted is for the gamers to decide, and if they aren't old enough, their parent's instead. In the world today, we have so many problems, that ones like this will most likely solve themselves in time. The only danger I can see in the mainstreaming of video games is the danger that many will become mediocre just so no one is offended. Hope that never happens.

[MrBenchley]

11. Wow...your post is wrongheaded on so many levels.....

"This is a basic hack and slash fantasy game....As with many games of this type, the gameplay has many sub-plots, and one of them in this game is to rescure a pirate from his evil master. The odd thing is this, if you player is male, then when you rescure him you both can start to have a romantic relationship, and eventually, at the end of the game, this happens."
To be KIND: I doubt anyone who's ever lived in a big city thinks it's in any way surprising that two guys who share "slash" fantasies about master/slave relationships for hours end up like that....

The plain fact is, though, that parents are perfectly entitled to have the government regulate the sort of violent, misogynistic, bigoted swill that is in some video games.....and that such regulation is perfectly within the mainstream of liberal thought.

[Solon]

13. Jesus H. Christ...

You deliberately misrepresented the post, I DEMAND an apology. If you are totally ignorant about most of the things you post about video games, then you have no right to say shit about them, it really is that simple. Also, where the hell does it say, in liberal thought, that regulating content is a good thing? Also, how do you get around the First Amendment? Answer these questions, don't avoid them like you usually do.

[sendero]

15. Check my history..

... I'm a big detractor of Hillary's. I think she's basically a phony trying to ride into the white house on Bill's coat tails. I think the Repub media is trying to create the usual "aura of inevitability" because they'll TROUNCE her once nominated.

That said, please do not mistake the voters for rational people. I'm totally 100% against wasting time and money on an issue that I feel is 1) 100% the parent's responsibility 2) futile. If I could change pop culture, I'd pull us away from the track we started down in the 80s, everyone's a winner or everyone's a loser, everyone is on a fast track to hero or the gutter. It's pathetic. But I digress.

There is a huge difference between what rational, thoughtful people want government to accomplish and what fools do. Hillary might well be playing to the fools, and of course I don't like that because I don't want her nominated, she can't win unless she brings around millions of people who hate her right now, and I don't think they will warm up to her over crap like this, but who knows?

[Solon]

17. And further alienate the 18-35 year old male demographic...

that is the biggest problem beyond the fact that this "issue" is a total waste of time. I fight against it for the sheer stupidity of it. I do try to remain civil when debating others, but certain individuals make it particularly hard to do so. Particularly when they violate not only rules of netiquette, but also rules of basic civility in society at large.

[sendero]

19. I wonder how many...

.. 18-35 years olds are going to change their minds about Hillary over this nonsense. What is the practical effect on their life? Zero.

I'm not trying to pick a fight - I'm just playing devil's advocate. I oppose any and all attempts at censorship.

My comment, summarized, is this: these political manouvers are just about the only talent Hillary actually has. I have no idea if they could really be successful with the electorate, I wouldn't write them off casually.

[MrBenchley]

23. I wonder how many of us

want to live our lives in a society based solely on what appeals to males 18-35? Especially males 18-35 who spend significant amounts of time obsessing over prurient fantasies of violence, misogyny, bigotry and the like?

[LiberalPersona]

25. Oh but we

should want to live in a society based solely on what soccer moms think is ok?

[MrBenchley]

30. Are you telling us that only soccer moms

object to bigotry, hate, and cruelty offered as sport? Guess again.

[LiberalPersona]

32. No

I'm telling you that only soccer moms want to limit people's freedom of expression to "protect the children."

[MrBenchley]

36. Not even close to true....

but thanks for playing...

[Solon]

28. I would...

I know many people around my age that sat out the 2000 election for two reasons, Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman, and their attitudes to their music and video games. Don't know how much of that actually effected the outcome of the election, don't have data on it, but it can't be totally insignificant.

[MrBenchley]

31. Wow...

Good job explaining the "real issues" there. None of my friends would do anything like that...

[Solon]

33. Is it anymore ridiculous than trying to appease soccer moms...

over a single "real issue" as you put it?

[MrBenchley]

37. Be sure to show us

that soccer moms are ignoring other issues.

[MrBenchley]

21. However....

Don't dismiss the concern over this issue as "irrational" thoughtlessness by "idiots" either....

"If I could change pop culture, I'd pull us away from the track we started down in the 80s, everyone's a winner or everyone's a loser"
Go back and read post #2 again in that regard and see how a parent's concern for his child's welfare is being framed....and what the final four words of the first sentence are.

You brought up the 1980s; since that decade there's been a deliberate attempt by the rightwing to let executives evade responsibility for corporate misbehavior by framing all public questions in terms of "personal responsibilty."

To take just a few examples, it's not Big Tobacco's fault that they lied to the public for decades about the health risk associated with their product and now your Dad is dying of emphysema--HE was irresponsible.

It's not the gun industry's fault that they distributed guns in an irresponsible and reckless manner and your Ma got shot and killed--you ought to accept the idea of personal responsibiltiy and lump it.

It's you and your kid's problem that he's got juvenile diabetes--you were supposed to be "responsible" enough to know that when a multi-million dollar corporation sold your family grease and starch under the brand name "Happy Meal" it was neither happy nor a meal.

It's not the oil industry and the automobile industry's fault that we're dependent on foreign oil--you "demand" SUVs that guzzle gas, not hybrid vehicles that can use alternative fuels.

Because, of course, citizens have no right to expect that a product they buy is safe, or lives up to the claims publicly made for it, or has been manufactured and distributed responsibly by the corporations profiting from it. It's your personal responsibility to do all the research necessary (and to personally take action if there's something wrong), and if you don't, well, tough titty on you. And that argument, backed by millions of dollars of propaganda generated by folks like the Heritage Foundation, is how decades of regulations were overturned and needed legislation was blocked.

"There is a huge difference between what rational, thoughtful people want government to accomplish and what fools do."
I can't think of a better example of what a fool does than somebody who regurgitates this "personal responsibility" mantra mindlessly without regard to its provenance calling anybody else a "corporatist" or "corporate whore."

[MrBenchley]

16. I misrepresented nothing

And I've answered both of your questions more than once.

"Also, where the hell does it say, in liberal thought, that regulating content is a good thing?"
Far as I can see, this is no different than regulating the amount of insect parts in cans of tuna fish or toxic sludge dumped in a river.

"how do you get around the First Amendment?"
No need to....restrictions on an absolute First Amendment rights regarding offensive, prurient or inflammatory speech or publishe materials are widely accepted, except among the extreme libertarian fringe. Parents have a right to expect that a bookseller who peddled ordinary pornography (let alone violent pornography or snuff fims) to kids would be punished by law, and I know of no liberal who would argue otherwise.

[Solon]

27. You cannot compare either pollution or food regulations...

To content regulations. First, there is direct causation in many cases like pollution in food or water, like Mercury in fish, that evidence is lacking in regards to what is put in video games. Second, you are referring to obscenity laws and the regulation of pornography, a couple of things. First, these things are NARROWLY regulated for very specific things in regards to both what the content is, and are banned from being sold to minors. However, there are problems with what you propose, first, to ignore other mediums, like music, mainstream movies, and books(without pictures) makes writing such a law unconstitutional.

I'm not saying that a 5 year old should be able to play the game GTA, nor would I buy my own son or daughter said game for them to play. However, there is one thing that needs to be made clear, there is absolutely no comparison between the worst that has ever come out in video games, and pornography and snuff films. No comparison whatsoever, not even the game that started the furor for this year, GTA: San Andreas, even come close to protraying sex in ways like those types of movies do. To say otherwise is to lie. In fact, the game that really started a the whole government attempt at a crackdown, Night Trap for the Sega CD back in 1992, isn't even as bad as a PG-13 movie of the time. Not to mention that it was a bad game, so bad in fact, that no one probably would have heard of it or bought it if the government didn't make a big stink. But it did start the whole ESRB though, that could be considered a good thing, before that, the Video Game industry didn't even have a rating body at all. Sega had their own rating system, and Nintendo just banned or censored games with a certain amount of violence, like the original Mortal Kombat.

That being said, probably the biggest problem is the lack of control of distribution. This is a huge problem if you think about it. Its true that the MPAA ratings do not have the force of law, however, it is enforced within the industry, basically, if kids are allowed into movie theatres for R rated movies, the cineplex in question faces civil liability from the MPAA. It is licensed material from them, after all, they can do what they will with it. But the Video Game Industry doesn't have that type of control, they rely on the retailer for providing a venue to sell their games, and cannot excersize the control over how the content is sold as the Movie industry can. If they start pulling products from shelves in stores that don't follow the ESRB's recommendations, then they simply lose sales, the stores themselves aren't penalized that much, they usually don't make nearly as much money off the games as they do for movies after all. If you want to make a real effort in this, then pressure the retailers, the industry can do little to alleviate the problem, they produce the material, they have a body to regulate and rate it, its up to the stores to follows those rules. That is where the system breaks down, at point of sale, so that is where the problem needs to be addressed.

BTW: A couple of things, you did misrepresent my post, the fantasy I was referring to is about dragons, dungeons, and magic, you misrepresented that to mean S&M, I again demand you retract your previous statement. If you don't bother to even RTFP then stop commenting on them.

[MrBenchley]

35. The hell you can't....

"First, there is direct causation in many cases like pollution in food or water"
Here's Faux Noise trying to spin that away...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151065,00.html

Here's right wing pinhead Tom Sowell denying there's causation in defense of racial and sexual discrimination.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/5998/statsts.html

"there is absolutely no comparison between the worst that has ever come out in video games, and pornography and snuff films."
Sez you.

"If they start pulling products from shelves in stores that don't follow the ESRB's recommendations, then they simply lose sales"
So let's let them cash in on their own irresponsibility. Megadittoes!

"the fantasy I was referring to is about dragons, dungeons, and magic, you misrepresented that to mean S&M"
I misrepresented nothing. From post #10: "This is a basic hack and slash fantasy game...the gameplay has many sub-plots, and one of them in this game is to rescure a pirate from his evil master....a "Mainstream" game with open homosexuality and gay marriage in it!"

[MrBenchley]

2. Of course....

nobody could actually object to games filled with violence, misogyny and bigoted stereotypes peddled by a dishonest industry, unless they had an ulterior motive (snicker).....

The offensive nature of these dreary timesinks aside, it sure seems like a good idea to appeal to married with kids types and enlist their support on other issues too, such as foreign policy, national security, health care, the environment, workers rights, etc.,etc.,etc....

[Arkana]

18. Uh...

nobody could actually object to games filled with violence, misogyny and bigoted stereotypes peddled by a dishonest industry, unless they had an ulterior motive (snicker).....

If they object, then they don't have to buy them. It's that simple. Video games today are violent, but to turn over regulation of their content to the Repubes in government spells disaster.

[MrBenchley]

38. Wow.. what a silly statement

"to turn over regulation of their content to the Repubes in government spells disaster."
A) Hillary is a Democrat.
b) Katrina and the inadequate Republican response because they controlled FEMA was a disaster. This is an inconvenience for men who play sick little fantasies in their spare time.

[Arkana]

40. I've noticed the only way you respond to EVERY argument

is to deride the other person.

Turning over control of video game content to ANYONE in government is insane. If you don't like violent video games, then don't buy them. If people mistake fantasy for reality, it's their own sick mind's fault, not the video game industry's.

[MrBenchley]

41. Not so...

I only respond that way to really silly comments..

[Arkana]

42. Like I said.

You didn't even consider my statement--you just derided it as "silly." Is anything that's perhaps said against Hillary's and Joe's fatwa against video games "silly"? :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

45. I considered it

and rendered my judgement.

If you want to pretend Democrats are having a "fatwa" against these malignant timesinks, be my guest.

[Arkana]

46. "Malignant timesinks"?

This is, hopefully, the thing I'll be building my career on--these "malignant timesinks" as you call them.

Second, I don't think ALL Democrats are calling for a jihad against violent video games--just the ones like Hillary and Holy Joe who should have better things to do.

[MrBenchley]

47. One hopes

that the games you design will not be a sorry melange of violence, bigotry, misogyny coupled with a savage's world-view.

[Arkana]

48. Geez, why do you hate video games so much?

What would you prefer? "Mr. Slappy's Happy Fun Hour"?

[MrBenchley]

49. I guess it was futile to hope that someone posing as a progressive

would actually want to reflect progressive values.

[LiberalPersona]

51. Apparently

the point of video games seems to fly way over your head.

[MrBenchley]

52. Hahahahaha....

[Irreverend IX]

8. She wants to appeal to families?

Well then, maybe she should focus on policies that will improve the educational system, and maybe propose some kind of tax credit scheme and/or labor policy revision to allow parents more time with their children. Holy Joe and his pals have been crowing about violent video games for a long time, and it hasn't done jack shit for Democrats' popularity. I'm not a parent, but I get the impression that a lot of parents are more concerned about the amount of time they get to spend with their kids than about video games. If parents have any responsibility, they'll be able to keep their kids from accessing violent and adult entertainment. It's not like that kind of material just sprang into existence; kids have been sneaking looks at Playboy magazines for decades.

[MrBenchley]

12. Wow...what planet are we on?

Here on earth, Hillary has been fighting for education throughout her first term, and is a supporter of the Family Leave Act her husband championed and put into law. She's co-sponsor of S.282, which would expand that act.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=247782

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=249089

[No Exit]

22. How to appeal to parents/families: don't kill their kids in an illegal war

It's that simple.

Whatever anyone wants to say about Hillary, I can't picture her as an "endless war" president.

This post comes from a former freeper and former Clinton-hater. I would vote for Hillary Clinton over ANY republican on the planet.

[MrBenchley]

24. There's been a determined effort by freepers

for more than a year now to blame the Democrats for Chimpy's war...I'm sure everybody's sen the "email from a friend" with out of context quotes from John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle, and others. (And let's pause for a moment and remember the tons of vitriol dumped on those same Democratic heads by those same freepers because they were "appeasing Saddam" and delaying the war.)

What I find disturbing is that many DUers seem to have swallowed that malarkey and now beleive it.

[No Exit]

26. It absolutely defies logic.

It defies even the most easy-to-understand logic to claim that democrats are to blame for Junior's fraudulent war. And the freepsters have been crowing about the democrats' powerlessness (relatively speaking--since democrats don't control any branch of government) for years now. Yet they now say that "democrats did it"??

Of course, we know that freepsters can defy 6 kinds of logic before breakfast...

[MrBenchley]

29. One expects freepers to spout ludicrous crap

I must say though, I am surprised to see posts HERE doing the same thing...

What was hilarious to see is the way the freepers turned on a dime like a flock of starlings and went from "You're Saddam appeasing pacifists who hate America and don't support the war!" to "It's not the Republicans' fault we're in Iraq for no reason, it's you war-mongering Democrats!" virtually overnight. I often wonder how the freepers avoid whiplash when the talking points swivel 180 degrees like that.

[No Exit]

39. They're just emulating their lord and master

who said "It's about a possible nuclear strike on us" and then said "No, wait! It's about other terrible weapons of mass destruction like chemical and biological weapons" and then said "Okay, well, they didn't have any of those weapons, but it was all about spreading democracy to the Iraqi peepul, you see".

[MrBenchley]

44. Back when Chimpy was being called the next Churchill

and being compared to FDR by professional slobberers, I read a liberal blogger who paralleled the amazing shifting rationale for Iraq by imagining that in some alternate history FDR had invaded India after Japan attacked the US (I also seem to remember in the fantasy FDR kept denying that Japan had had anything to do with Pearl Harbor and held hands with Hirohito in public, and that many of FDR's speeches were mangled Chimp-style). Wish I had bookmarked it.

I DID bookmark this from early this year....if you haven't seen it, it's well worth wading through.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n03/wein01_.html

[No Exit]

53. Yes! I remember seeing that article.

There are a lot of "Believe It Or Not!" moments in that article. Among the many, this small one is worth remembering:

"I heard Richard Perle tell Americans to ‘relax and celebrate victory’. I heard him say: ‘The predictions of those who opposed this war can be discarded like spent cartridges.’"

As for the FDR comparison in the blog, that sounds like something that might even attract the attention of wingnut warmongers. They love WWII talk. And I bet the WWII imagery could make them see the absurdity of it all.

[Arkana]

43. I have to believe that were Hillary President, she'd be a lot different

than she is in the Senate. You're right, I don't see her as an "endless war" president, but this fatwa against video games is just insane.

[No Exit]

54. Yes, the video game stuff is stupid.

Although, one has to remember that the young people are being sold the idea that war is kind of like their coolest violent video games.

(I just hope they also see the slogan, "Join the military! It's just like your coolest video game... except you die.")

[Irreverend IX]

9. Dupe

Self delete

[Little Star]

14. Yep! That damn Elvis! He started

all this with his wiggling hips on TEEVEE. How about Hillary standing up for real things that damage kids like NO WAR. Parents have a choice with those games, don't allow them! Do they let their kids read pornography? Get real Hillary, parents are there to stop their kids from many harmful things in life, should we make a law for all things that are bad for kids?? Jeesh!

[No Exit]

20. Message to wholesome parents, from a parent:

You idiots! Fuck "violent video games"! Fuck "materialistic culture"! Fuck "lousy government schools"! Fuck "teen pregnancy"!

IF YOU STICK WITH THE REPUBLICANS YOUR CHILDREN WILL BE SENT TO WAR FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S PROFITS, AND THEY WILL DIE.

If helping your offspring STAY ALIVE isn't what parenting is all about, then I don't know what is.

[FreedomAngel82]

34. My message to the parents

PARENT THEM!!! They're the guardians! Not any politician! I get so tired of this nonsense. They have raitings on there and reviews on website's and/or on the back of the game. Good grief. I don't want a politician parenting me since I'm an adult and can parent myself!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. Hillary's playing the Republicans' game, and poorly at that

She's acting (the key word is "acting"--I doubt that she really cares one way or the other) all worked up about video games (first amendment issues involved here) and flag-burning, tagging right along with the right wing, but where's her outrage about the economic issues that no one is talking about--lack of living wage jobs, lack of affordable housing, lack of affordable high-quality day care, deteriorating schools, our aging infrastructure, the need to deal with energy issues?