It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
cogadh: He's a State Senator from San Francisco and he's telling people they have no business voicing their opinions in a public debate. If that isn't anti-free speech, I don't know what is.
avatar
pseudonarne: well it'd be different if you agreed with him.

Thats always how it is with those pesky demoncrat jackasses only they say its the opposite ;)

edit-
lol wikipedia says I guessed right. I won 50/50 odds
No it wouldn't. Free speech means everyone has the right to offer their opinion, regardless of political affiliation or where they stand on a particular topic. As a member of the government, he should know this and more importantly, defend it. He might not like what gamers have to say on the subject, but he has no business telling us to basically shut the hell up.

??? You guessed what right?
avatar
Cormoran: "Politician says something poorly thought out with no evidence to back it up in the hope that it will win him votes. Full story at 6."
avatar
cjrgreen: Leland Yee isn't just any mindless politician, nor is he without what he considers to be suitable evidence. This does not mean he is right; he is as palpably wrong as he sounds. But it does not mean that his pronouncements should be treated as so much hot air the way Jack Thompson's were before he shot his own career through the gonads.

Like it or not, he has to be refuted, not ignored or dismissed.
And that evidence is...?
avatar
cogadh: ??? You guessed what right?
oh.. which party to make fun of

fixed to clarify.
Post edited January 25, 2013 by pseudonarne
avatar
cjrgreen: Leland Yee isn't just any mindless politician, nor is he without what he considers to be suitable evidence. This does not mean he is right; he is as palpably wrong as he sounds. But it does not mean that his pronouncements should be treated as so much hot air the way Jack Thompson's were before he shot his own career through the gonads.

Like it or not, he has to be refuted, not ignored or dismissed.
avatar
Cormoran: And that evidence is...?
The evidence actually shows the exact opposite. He is going against the evidence, provides none of his own, and makes a claim. I fail to see why he shouldn't be ignored.
avatar
cjrgreen: Leland Yee isn't just any mindless politician, nor is he without what he considers to be suitable evidence. This does not mean he is right; he is as palpably wrong as he sounds. But it does not mean that his pronouncements should be treated as so much hot air the way Jack Thompson's were before he shot his own career through the gonads.

Like it or not, he has to be refuted, not ignored or dismissed.
avatar
Cormoran: And that evidence is...?
A good place to start would be the amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court case, http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/08-1448_amicus-California-Psychological-Association-et-al..pdf
avatar
Licurg: Can somebody in America please man up and punch that guy in the nose?
Yeah, being punched by an obviously violent gamer will really help our case...
avatar
Licurg: Can somebody in America please man up and punch that guy in the nose?
avatar
Randalator: Yeah, being punched by an obviously violent gamer will really help our case...
at least it might be funny
avatar
Licurg: Can somebody in America please man up and punch that guy in the nose?
avatar
Randalator: Yeah, being punched by an obviously violent gamer will really help our case...
I don't care about our "case", I don't care about arguing with imbecils who lie just for the sake of getting a few votes, I just wanna see that fucker serving Bloody Marys from his nose. That's all....
avatar
Randalator: Yeah, being punched by an obviously violent gamer will really help our case...
avatar
pseudonarne: at least it might be funny
Also this.
Post edited January 25, 2013 by Licurg
avatar
Licurg: Can somebody in America please man up and punch that guy in the nose?
That's dangerous in America. He might shoot you.
The article linked by OP is slightly inaccurate, so to speak. The purpose of the 2005 bill was not to "ban sales of ultra-violent video games", but to make retailers place M-rated games separately from non-M-rated ones, and to criminalize selling M-rated games to minors. I actually agree with these, please don't punch me in the nose.
Post edited January 25, 2013 by drennan
avatar
drennan: The article linked by OP is slightly inaccurate, so to speak. The purpose of the 2005 bill was not to "ban sales of ultra-violent video games", but to make retailers place M-rated games separately from non-M-rated ones, and to criminalize selling M-rated games to minors. I actually agree with these, please don't punch me in the nose.
Except for the fact that it singles out one medium for Scarlet Lettering while doing fuck-all about other mediums that display just as much, if not more, of the contentious behavior.
avatar
Cormoran: And that evidence is...?
avatar
cjrgreen: A good place to start would be the amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court case, http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/08-1448_amicus-California-Psychological-Association-et-al..pdf
The study it cites, and more specifically the person who headed it, is of questionable legitimacy.

In debating these idiots we give them a certain air of legitimacy. The general public don't follow up on whether or not the debate was won or lost (note that Dr. Andersons' previous studies on this issue have been rejected by the courts that considered them) they only ever hear that there was a debate.
He's not really wrong though. His language is annoying, but it's a fair point. Most gamers I see talking about this issue sound just like gun hobbyists: defending their hobby to extremes because they're biased.

Media effects us tremendously. Nothing wrong with examining games' effect on kids and perhaps making it harder for them to play violent ones.
avatar
drennan: The article linked by OP is slightly inaccurate, so to speak. The purpose of the 2005 bill was not to "ban sales of ultra-violent video games", but to make retailers place M-rated games separately from non-M-rated ones, and to criminalize selling M-rated games to minors. I actually agree with these, please don't punch me in the nose.
Their purpose might have been sane but their wording made it a bad bill. Those who wrote the stupid thing should be kicked in the butt and thrown out of their jobs for being incompetent.

I'm obviously a violent gamer for suggesting the above. Question is, am I violent because I play games or am I just a violent dude that plays games. And I should also shut the eff up because there's a US senator talking and he knows stuff - "he knows better"(tm). Btw, did the americans show any evidence of those chemical weapons that the Iraqis supposedly had and for which they got their country bombed to crumbles ?
Post edited January 25, 2013 by silviucc
avatar
StingingVelvet: He's not really wrong though. His language is annoying, but it's a fair point. Most gamers I see talking about this issue sound just like gun hobbyists: defending their hobby to extremes because they're biased.

Media effects us tremendously. Nothing wrong with examining games' effect on kids and perhaps making it harder for them to play violent ones.
I absolutely agree that there is nothing wrong with examining the situation. In fact, I encourage it because I am certain that it will prove what multiple legitimate studies have already proven: games do not increase actual violence in any measurable or significant way. They do increase aggression in individuals, as does any competitive activity such as sports, but aggression does not automatically equal violent acts.

What I disagree with is that any group, especially a group so intimately involved with the topic at hand, should be excluded from this discussion. Why is Yee's obvious bias about games more valid than gamers' bias?