Congressman: Daily Show misrepresented me
by Ross Miller 
{ Jul 20th 2006 at 8:25PM }
U.S. House of Representatives member Joseph Pitts (R-PA) is upset over the way Jon Stewart and the Daily Show crew misrepresented his words regarding violent video games. Pitts was one of the many Congressman highlighted in the Daily Show skit "Player Haters," where he decreed the following: It's safe to say that a wealthy kid from the suburbs can play 'Grand Theft Auto' without turning to a life of crime, but a poor kid who lives in a neighborhood where people really do shoot cops and steal cars and deal drugs might not be so fortunate. There's almost certainly a child somewhere in the America who is going to be hurt by this game. Maybe his dad is in jail or his big brother is already down on the corner dealing drugs.
Pitts has issued a statement where he "regret[s] that Comedy Central's 'Daily Show' portrayed my words the way they did," while sidestepping blame and defending his stance on the regulation on video games and other forms of entertainment.
Completely unrelated to his strong stance on video games, Rep. Joe Pitts is up for re-election this November. "Player Haters" was a segment meant to highlight the ignorance of Congressional members towards the subject of gaming who continue to use it as the current political punching bag.
[via Game Politics]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
vaylen @ Jul 20th 2006 8:33PM
Damn I hope his constituents aren't retarded enough to re-elect that fool. If so, they suck!
Babylonian @ Jul 20th 2006 8:40PM
He regrets they "portrayed his words they way they did"? By what, directly quoting him?
They didn't tamper with what came out of his mouth, they just showed it to the average viewer. Even without The Daily Show's context, what he said was offensive by itself.
JonStewart @ Jul 20th 2006 8:49PM
Jon Stewart is awesome.
GSI @ Jul 20th 2006 8:52PM
I love it when people say "you misquoted me" when what they said was recorded on TV and unaltered. The fat guy from the 700 Club does that crap all the time.
John H. @ Jul 20th 2006 9:09PM
Unfortunately, politics these days seems to consist mostly of finding some issue that can be spun into a crisis and riding that as far as it can go. The worst part of it is that when a real crisis comes along, people tend to be apathetic (Obalglay Armingway).
Probot @ Jul 20th 2006 9:19PM
I understand what he's trying to say, even though I don't agree with it. He's saying that kids in high crime areas are more likely to become involved in criminal activities, whereas kids in affluent neighborhoods are less likely. He believes the video game could be the thing that pushes the poor child over that edge.
The problem is, he seems to assume that the video game is somehow more influential than a drug-selling brother or a dad that's in jail. They're essentially blaming the last straw for the problem. That is the problem with most arguments against violent games. They try to ignore every other factor in the child's life.
Shadowstorm @ Jul 20th 2006 9:24PM
"3. He regrets they "portrayed his words they way they did"? By what, directly quoting him?
They didn't tamper with what came out of his mouth, they just showed it to the average viewer. Even without The Daily Show's context, what he said was offensive by itself."
That's absolutely right. All's Jon Stewart did was let it roll. The senator is the one who made himself an idiot.
Tiago @ Jul 20th 2006 9:27PM
nr 10, here in Europe we have 8 year olds playing GTA, Resident Evil and all that crap... And guess what? they're perfectly normal children.
Like children before them, when there were no games, tried to sneak into movies and rent movies that weren't for their age (like they still do today).
It's all about the education they receive. What their parents teach or don't teach them.
But it's easier to find scapegoats than to solve real problems.
I bet no one in America will ever accuse parents of being bad parents... because that doesn't bring any votes...
GhaleonQ @ Jul 20th 2006 9:28PM
"The Daily Show" may be irritating and unintelligent, but Stewart's actually in the right here.
AoE @ Jul 20th 2006 9:43PM
"I bet no one in America will ever accuse parents of being bad parents... because that doesn't bring any votes..."
Eugh, I wish I could laugh, but this is very true. Americans (and for the record, yes I am one) by and large don't seem to really like taking responsiblity for thier own actions. But last I checked Rockstar didn't have trench-coated employees handing out free copies of GTA to unsuspecting children on schoolyards...
Wonder Cheese @ Jul 20th 2006 9:46PM
You sheep are incredibly reactionary, politically correct lemmings. He didn't claim to be misquoted. He disagreed with the way his comments were portrayed, meaning the way Jon Stewart did an immitation of him and added words in that immitation. Yes, it's a comedy show, and just about anything is fair game. But you can't fault a person for not appreciating being mocked. Understand a little nuance you simpletons.
Now, to the real issue. What he said is absolutely correct. His obvious point is that a kid who's already in a bad environment is more likely to be affected by one more glorification of violence and anti-social behavior than somebody who isn't already bombarded with that crap to such an extent. Anyone ready to knuckle up and actually try to say that he's wrong, or are you just a bunch of overly sensitive knee-jerk creeps? If the obvious truth is offensive to you, might as well cover your ears and stop listening.
HotShotX @ Jul 20th 2006 10:02PM
"The House of Representatives is filled with insane jackasses."
Jon Stewart hit the nail on the head, perhaps this whole issue will wake a few of these old farts up and get them to stop dictating a generation they lost touch with decades ago.
~HotShotX
Deadpool @ Jul 20th 2006 10:08PM
#14
He regrets it not because they were mocking him, but because he realizes how much of an a$$ he made of himself.
Which ironically goes the same for your post.
Nathan M @ Jul 20th 2006 10:09PM
Wonder Cheese: They're blaming the last straw for the broken back. The game may have pushed them over the edge, but in an environment of that sort something else is bound to do it unless they themselves have the resolve to do better.
HotShotX @ Jul 20th 2006 10:15PM
"His obvious point is that a kid who's already in a bad environment is more likely to be affected by one more glorification of violence and anti-social behavior than somebody who isn't already bombarded with that crap to such an extent. Anyone ready to knuckle up and actually try to say that he's wrong, or are you just a bunch of overly sensitive knee-jerk creeps? If the obvious truth is offensive to you, might as well cover your ears and stop listening.
"
He's wrong, if someone is already bombarded with violence throughout their childhood, one violent video game is not going to change years of bad parenting (Parents still have proper control of right/wrong, regardless of the environment).
Now, if anything, that violent video game is going to keep the kid OFF of the streets, instead of him having nothing entertaining to do but live a life of poverty and find a more illegal outlet in what I'm sure is such a loving community.
~HotShotX
Deadpool @ Jul 20th 2006 10:18PM
"Wonder Cheese: They're blaming the last straw for the broken back. The game may have pushed them over the edge, but in an environment of that sort something else is bound to do it unless they themselves have the resolve to do better."
Exactly. Instead of trying to fix the issue that enviroments like this still exist in America...he attacks video games. Brilliant!!!
Mises @ Jul 20th 2006 10:40PM
@Tiago
"here in Europe we have 8 year olds playing GTA, Resident Evil and all that crap... And guess what? they're perfectly normal children."
Unfortunately, Tiago, your average European country believes in assuming even less personal responsibility for yourself and your children than the US does. If the opposite were true, you wouldn't funnel such ridiculous amounts into faultering safety nets for your least-productive citizens. Granted, we have crap programs like welfare and social security, but not to the extent that you guys do.
and
@WonderCheese
Simpletons? Hardly. The fact that you'd defend a man who would prevent the 99.999% of well-adjusted kids from playing a violent game because of the handful of idiots that might actually try and mimic something they saw in GTA makes you the simpleton. Go lobby for censorship somewhere else and don't try and sell out my right to buy or play violent video games.
Wonder Cheese @ Jul 20th 2006 11:01PM
"They're blaming the last straw for the broken back. The game may have pushed them over the edge, but in an environment of that sort something else is bound to do it unless they themselves have the resolve to do better."
So you're saying it could contribute, but it's only one thing. So don't try to regulate individual contributors when it comes to children? So if someone is bound to fall over the edge eventually, go ahead and push em a little extra? Is that the logic?
Wonder Cheese @ Jul 20th 2006 11:10PM
"Simpletons? Hardly. The fact that you'd defend a man who would prevent the 99.999% of well-adjusted kids from playing a violent game"
False. They're discussing making it more difficult for children to obtain these games, and encouraging game makers to exercise a little social responsibility. So this man isn't trying to prevent the 99.999% of other kids from playing a violent game. False argument. -1 point.
"because of the handful of idiots that might actually try and mimic something they saw in GTA makes you the simpleton. Go lobby for censorship somewhere else and don't try and sell out my right to buy or play violent video games."
I'm not lobbying for censorship, and neither was he. They were discussing the ratings system. There's a huge difference between regulation and censorship. False argument #2. -1 point.
-2 points overall, try again.
Deadpool @ Jul 20th 2006 11:26PM
Has Joseph Pitts ever been to a ghetto to see what these "poor kids" have to go through? have you wonderbread?
The issue isn't videogames. The issue is that kids that grow up in poor families don't have money to do recreational activities that would keep them out of the streets. The school system usually sucks in these areas as well. I could tell you stories about how the school system fails these kids as I've seen it first hand. Videogames do not corrupt children. These poor enviroments do. If anything, videogames gives them a diversion from the rough reality that they live.
The Origin of Species @ Jul 20th 2006 11:28PM
@ Wonder Cheese
"False argument #2. -1 point.
-2 points overall, try again."
What's with the points? It's awfully easy to win an argument when you're the only one arguing, even easier when you're the referee. The point is video games are bad but not as bad as other issues. The politicians are wasting their time bickering over the "last straw" instead of targeting the major load itself.
I give you a two minute minor, for incompetence
JJ @ Jul 20th 2006 11:29PM
I wonder, Wonder CHeese, if this Isn't a form of censorship?
Some of these senators want to ban violent games all together. Games aren't some magical device that make kids go out and commit illegal actions.
They're just the current scapegoat, Much like Rock and Roll, Rap, movies, etc were in their early days. I mean after all its infinitely easier for a kid to go online and find porn and other gateways to illegal information than it is for them to go to a store and spending hundreds of dollars on games. So by these senators logic should we ban violent movies and the internet?
One game will have no overall bearing on a child in the long run. To say so is ignorant, children will more likely be influenced by their parents (or lack there of) and environment, If your environment is violent, chances are, so to will you be violent.
But then anyone has the capacity to be a violent dangerous citizen, but a bunch of pixels on a TV screen will hardly influence all but the most insane and in that case, they were long gone before video games even came into the picture.
Also for the most part its the PARENTS that buy these games for kids, this is hardly the epidemic catastrophe that these politicians point out. In my 3 years at working at a video game retailer, we never ONCE sold any game over Teen to anyone under 16. In all cases a parent bought the game for the kid, i'm sure MOST retailers are the same way.
DannyHibiki @ Jul 20th 2006 11:33PM
I think Wonder Cheese is really good ol' Jack Thompson in disguise. :)
Wonder Cheese @ Jul 20th 2006 11:53PM
"I think Wonder Cheese is really good ol' Jack Thompson in disguise. :)"
Nah, I'm just a gamer who thinks the gaming community, in general, is really thin skinned. There are plenty of stupid criticisms of video games. But the gaming community and especially this site can't seem to have a decent discussion of any criticism, because the automatic reaction is to spaz, instead of taking the criticism and thinking of whether it might be accurate. There's an extreme lack of logic and an abundance of knee-jerk middle fingers in the air. I'll attack a bad criticism any time I see one, but I'll at least take the time to analyze it first.
If you believe that media (video games, tv, movies, books, etc.) have no effect on thinking and behavior, especially of the more vulnerable amongst us, go ahead and state it. If you're realistic and realize that they can and do have an effect, then we can have a discussion on the nitty gritty. If you want me to agree that congress discussing this instead of other issues is a waste of time, I agree whole heartedly. But that wasn't the issue with most of you. Most of you just can't stand any criticism of video games, and so any attempt at it becomes rally time against "the man".
Oh, and if you think children aren't affected by what they watch...see...hear...I'm wondering why my brother and I pummelled each every time we finished watching a Popeye cartoon. ;)
TeddyN @ Jul 21st 2006 12:03AM
lol, so based on what that guy was saying, if you take away all violent video games we will see a reduction in the amount of violent crime?
Anyway, presumably if they're playing the game they're inside not doing any harm, rather then being on the streets 'dealing drugs' and whatnot.
The announcement is funny though, because he doesn't say what the 'correct' interpretation of what he said was... he's just trying to make it ambiguous so that those inclined to like him will imagine some favourable way in which it could be seen; or just ignore the criticisms raised by Jon Stewart.
Johnny Hundo @ Jul 21st 2006 12:21AM
First off - that was the first embedded link I've ever mouse'd over and laughed out loud out.
Secondly - they were not talking about the ratings system. That is in place and completely usable and easy to understand - for PARENTS who care.
What they were talking about is enforcement of the ratings system via a LAW that will cause big box retailers (ie- the ones that the publishers make most of their money from) - to shy away from "questionable" content (ie2- stuff that bible thumpers would not like).
Now the whole picture of this situation is probably being painted a little darker than the reality would be, but - in my opinion - let there be LIGHT! The kind that radiates from rich white children in Feburary.
(last sentence a joke).
Either way, more laws - just mean more moral policeing by our supposedly free society.
But it's inevitable - congress(wo)men are only judged by the number of laws they enact or vote for - imagine if a congressman voted to repeal anything except taxes. They'd be vilified worse than a muslim in Birmingham.
-Hundo
We're all screwed.
ljbad4life @ Jul 21st 2006 12:39AM
I have to add one thing... which is logical and often puzzling to me... what's with the double standard? just because your rich, you won't commit crimes? that is hardly a fact. The fact is these billionaire babys have parent with influence that would stop them from being prosecuted. How many rich kids get away with raping girls? I remember one case in which the rich guy fled the country and is still at large.. secondly I want to talk double standard with kids in and of themselves. people want kids to be kids, but they force them to be adults. on one hand ppl r saying that kids are to stupid to tell the diference between fiction and reality... in that very same breath kids are them held to tests (in the 3rd grade) that largely influence the rest of their lives! how much maturity is involved in that or if a kid commits a crime,then is charged as an adult?!?
somebody @ Jul 21st 2006 1:27AM
this reminds me of something i read today
http://www.gamerevolution.com/oldsite/articles/violence/violence.htm
Rob X. @ Jul 21st 2006 2:31AM
"Most of you just can't stand any criticism of video games, and so any attempt at it becomes rally time against "the man"."
It's hard to take criticism seriously from people who are directly responsible for more death and destruction than any video game will ever be.
JPRacer @ Jul 21st 2006 3:58AM
Well, I'm not good enough in english to tell you exactly how I feel about this situation but I agree completely with Wonder Cheese and Mr. Pitts . And this has nothing to do about censorship. They just want to stop selling mature video games to children which I completely agree with.
And if you're a parent and you have no problem with your kid playing violent game, just bought the game and let him play. No problem here.
Xizer @ Jul 21st 2006 5:35AM
Racist? Okay, how many rich neighborhoods do you know that are filled with crime like the ghettos? It's just a fact: Ghettos have more crime, black people are the majority race in ghettos. So if you said black people commit more crime, you would be correct. There would be no racism involved.
Pixelantes Anonymous @ Jul 21st 2006 7:26AM
The Jon Stewart segment on Joe Pitts' idiocy, and the commentary on that segment by gamers, by and large, has had nothing to do with "defending gaming", but exposing Joe Pitts and the other congresscritters featured as the idiots that they are.
The main issue is not that some insane jackasses are attacking gaming (yet again), but that these insane jackasses are legislating while clearly knowing NOTHING about the issue(s) at hand. Joe Pitts' comments highlighted on the Daily Show are so out of touch with reality it scares me that this man is allowed to draft/vote on bills affecting issues of childhood safety and/or video gaming. It's obvious he's just making that shit up as he goes.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I expect more from the people that represent my interests.
32_footsteps @ Jul 21st 2006 7:45AM
Okay, so maybe video games can have a small amount of impact, at the very end of the cycle, that can encourage violence. Any media can be said to have the same.
So the question is, do we restrict video games so that something else can be the final trigger for youth violence? Or do we work at the actual problem so that video games never have the chance to become the trigger? The former seems to be the route that our Congress wants to take, because it's quicker. However, while it might take longer, the latter is the one that will actually result in a better society - not to mention that it won't run afoul of the 1st Amendment.
If you want to solve the problem, remove the explosive, not the trigger. Explosives have a bad habit of going off even without a trigger in place.
clo1_2000 @ Jul 21st 2006 9:25AM
Wonder Cheese is a wunderkid. I don't know how you can begin to defend someone who is attacking video games as the reason little johnnie goes out and kills/robs/steals when everything else in his environment is wrong. Why not fix the real issues? I'll tell you why, because its much easier to scapegoat video games instead of ending poverty and reducing violence in America. You are truly one of the most unintelligent people I have met on the 'net and that's saying a lot.
Jason W @ Jul 21st 2006 9:59AM
I dont think that games make you do things. I mean come on. Ive never shot an alien even though Ive tried, but I have killed the last 3 pet turtles Ive had. I just cant help trying to stomp on them to see if i can shoot them across the room. So far it hasnt worked but today ifs friday. I got paid. Back to the bet store to try again. : )
ck @ Jul 21st 2006 9:59AM
I understand where the senator is coming from, we all want to see less youth violence. But 32_Footsteps is right, we're going about this all the wrong way. A law is just that, a law. A quick fix. Most kids still sneak in rated R movies or get a hold of pornography. The kids that do this are already on the verge of destruction. Violent video games are just more ammunition.
This is a community problem that goes way deeper than the legal system can reach. We need a whole community involved - more education in public schools about violence and the families need to get involved and educated, too. I work at Blockbuster and it amazes me that so many parents don't mind renting GTA San Andreas to their 12 or 10 year-old! The ratings system is fine - we all need to be educated and informed of it more and a law isn't going to change that in the long run.
WizarDru @ Jul 21st 2006 10:56AM
What Pitts said, according the TFA was that he was unhappy that Stewart portrayed his words the day they did. This has the effect of implying that he was quoted out of context...but his comments before and after clearly indicate that he wasn't. He merely disliked his comments being held up to scrutiny and revealed as the out-of-touch, asinine attention grab that they were. In the same rebuttal he says:
"However hard it may be to prove their effect in any given instance, tragedies like the killings at Columbine High School and more recent events closer to home clearly show..."
In other words, even though studies consistently fail to find linkage between these games and the strawman I'm holding up, I'm going to play the parental-fear card anyways. As a father of two, I'm keenly aware of the effect media presentations can have on children...I'm also keenly aware how much MORE of an effect PARENTING can have on them.
Representative Pitts comments are offensive because they reduce the issue of child violence and various social problems to a ridiculously simple equation...even as he backpedals. The Columbine boys weren't from poor inner-city familys...they were from broken, dysfunctional middle-class homes.
If the video-game industry is 'thin-skinned', it may be because it's tired of being blamed for the ills of society becuase it is perceived by politicians as an easy-mark that won't fight back. Remember all the outrage and hearing for the movie "Hostel"? And "Saw and Saw II"? No? How about for "Last Tango in Paris"? "Behind the Green Door"? "American Pie"? "Clerks II"? No?
Never mind that the 16th district of PA, which I live just outside of, is hardly a major urban center, nor has any. Pitts represents the Amish as much as anyone else, with Reading being the only city of any size in his district....and while Reading has a few ugly spots, it's not exactly GTA territory. Hell, he doesn't even represent coal-cracker country, most of which is in abject rural poverty, so his experience with inner-city crime doesn't appear to have much grounding. It was a silly grand-stand play and he got caught, along with several other reps. The only difference is he's trying to pretend he was cast in a poor light.
Johnvanjim @ Jul 21st 2006 11:13AM
Also I find it quite humorous that youth violence has actually declined during the time that "Violent Videogames" have been on the market.
http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/324354.html
Scapegoating the easy target, then disliking public reaction to your comments, seems par for the course in politics nowadays. Spin away!
idioteraser @ Jul 21st 2006 11:30AM
Ahem anyone who has listened to the police knows the congressman is talking out of his butt. Poor people by and large do not own gaming consoles. Heck most of them have never played a video game.
The rich white kids often caught doing crimes have played grand theft auto. Black kids from the ghetto have overwhelmingly never heard of it.
Derbeste @ Jul 21st 2006 11:47AM
I have not had a single drink of alcohol in my life.
I have never taken a single drug.
I have never smoked a single cigarrete.
I was a virgin till I was 25 years old.
I have never been arrested for a crime.
Why didn't I do anything these things despite my local environment and constant videogame playing?
Because I was taught by my parents that those things can be harmful! They talked to me about all of them. They explain over and over that some are NEVER good, while others can effect the rest of your life if done under the wrong circumstance. I was taught to TRY to be different than all the things going on around me. I was taught that they were a challenge to overcome.
That's the thing about kids. They listen. They really do. They don't ALWAYS obey, but they DO LISTEN! Besides, they certainly can't obey if they are never given a rule.
Last point: People behave as they are treated. Our governments treat us like children...so that is how many of us act. One does NOT learn to make good choices by never making a choice. Our governments seem to think that since we CAN make a bad decision, we should not have access to a choice. So we are left with people that don't know HOW to make a choice. It's a self fullfilling prophecy.
Derbeste @ Jul 21st 2006 11:54AM
My last post needs a summary to make sure my point got across:
When confronted with something you see as "evil", it is not usually wise to remove your charges choice to partake in that "evil". Instead, you teach correct principles, teach how to make good decisions, and then let those you have tried to teach govern themselves.
Both teacher AND student will be better off for it.
Gonzo @ Jul 21st 2006 12:42PM
The fact is (and this really is a fact) that as more and more violent games have come out over the past several years, violence amongst youths has dropped dramatically. Is it a direct relation? Probably not but (there is a direct correlation) it makes you wonder why these politicians are so concerned about the affect of video games on teens when they have to benefitting them if anything. Most believe that violent video games tend more to pacify ones rage than stoke it. For example: being stuck in NYC traffic is enough to make you want to run over a few blind people. Even after getting home (especially after trying to park in NYC) you feel just as enraged as when you were stuck behind the old man with a hat who doesn't know which pedal makes it go. After playing a little bit of Burnout Revenge, does one feel even more angry? NO; If they did, nobody would play this game. You play it to get out the aggression.
So do violent games affect teens? Yes; of course, games relieve them of stress, anxiety, and rage: all things that directly cause people (of every age) to become violent. Every teenage boy has violent daydreams (I know I did and the most violent game we had at the time was Bionic Commando) and there's nothing you can do about that. All you can do is give them a neutral outlet (like a game-pad or a real life sparring partner) to work out the aggression.
Teens can't vote (so of course their needs and feelings are always ignored by politicians) but parents can so of course the politicians are going to say to parents "it's not our fault" and point the finger at (from what we've seen historically) whatever the kids are distracting themselves with, weather it's movies, comic books, music, or games; all of which have been attacked by irresponsible politicians in the past 100 years. And of course the parents are going to fawn over any politician who can convince them that they aren't responsible for how their children deal with stress, anxiety, and rage. There are healthy ways and unhealthy ways. Video games are healthy because they diffuse these feelings onto a being who doesn't really exist.
Do we all really have to argue with wonderbread? Can I help too? I think he should've called himself Swiss Cheese for all the holes in his arguments here.
Of course there's always going to be those people who are gullible enough to buy every little bit of propaganda and BS politicians spew to keep their jobs, but I can't help but feel sorry for those slobs because politicians aren't the most dangerous predator stalking them.
Wonder Cheese @ Jul 21st 2006 1:09PM
"I'll tell you why, because its much easier to scapegoat video games instead of ending poverty"
Good luck with that.
And thanks, everyone, for proving my point. Thin skinned and reactionary. No chance for an honest conversation.
Jason W @ Jul 21st 2006 1:39PM
All the idiots talking about the conservative party doing this needs to read Hillary's latest. Its a politician thing.
http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/top/clinton-to-planning-video-game-tax-looks-for-martyr-189042.php
Jason W @ Jul 21st 2006 2:18PM
Or maybe this one. Its not some nobody you guys need to worry about.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/436952p-368077c.html
Its this one with her eye on the whitehouse.
JJ @ Jul 21st 2006 3:02PM
Ok WC... you basically said instead of trying to work to help alleviate poverty... you'd rather have laws passed against videogames... Wow.
Sure it may not be the easiest thing to do and nigh impossible, but i rather have congressmen working towards alleviating problems with poverty than knee jerk reactions like blaming columbine on video games.
and how are we being thin skinned and reactionary? This is no different (just context really) than someone in power blaming crime on a minority population.
Of course people will be reactionary, its a smoke screen and most intelligent people see it as such. Crime has been around before video games and will always be a part of society, but to blame it on something that has only come about in the last 20 years is stupid.
and how can someone have an honest conversation with you, when you pull one quote and claim no one will have an honest conversation with you and yet there's many posts not bashing but stating simple facts?
You sir are the one that cant have an honest conversation.
B.Waite @ Jul 21st 2006 3:58PM
Claims that "[an underprivileged] child somewhere in America...is going to be hurt by this game" are no more valid than "I don’t think that games make you do things."
Personal opinion and anecdotal evidence are not proof of fact.
Let's pass judgment (and laws) only after we've seen the unbiased research that explores how video games affect the underprivileged children that Congressman Pitts speaks of.
I don't know of any research that does more than correlate games with violent behavior (just because things are related doesn't mean that one causes the other). So, Link 'em if you got 'em.
Wonder Cheese @ Jul 21st 2006 4:04PM
"Ok WC... you basically said instead of trying to work to help alleviate poverty... you'd rather have laws passed against videogames... Wow."
No, my point was that poverty won't ever be eliminated. Of course everyone should have opportunity, but there will always be people who refuse to take it. I have no problem with people trying to come up with a feasible ratings system, and expecting it to be enforced. It's not the be all end all, but it's something.
"Sure it may not be the easiest thing to do and nigh impossible, but i rather have congressmen working towards alleviating problems with poverty than knee jerk reactions like blaming columbine on video games."
Agreed. And I do think it's pretty much a waste of time. But when the issue is brought forward by whomever, Congress people who are going to comment, for better or worse. And I would agree that most of them are extremely uninformed on the issue. But when the issue is brought forward, comments will be made. Doesn't automatically make them all stupid. Most are.
"and how are we being thin skinned and reactionary?"
Within just a few comments, the man was called a "fool", "racist", "classist" among other things, with very little actual analysis of what he really said.
"Crime has been around before video games and will always be a part of society, but to blame it on something that has only come about in the last 20 years is stupid."
I guess the issue is whether the blame is put solely on one thing (obviously stupid), or whether intelligent people can discuss whether certain things can be negative contributors, and if so, how do we respond responsibly.
"You sir are the one that cant have an honest conversation."
Maybe it came off that way. My worldview may be competely different than most. I do believe that media influences have a strong impact on youth. I believe we have a sub-culture (nothing to do with race) that is very impacted by certain music, video games, movies, etc. that glorify everything that is destructive, and mock everything that is good. And I believe that gives a certain validation to some people to behave a certain way. I'm not supporting censorship, but I do believe an honest discussion on regulation and responsibility in marketing can be valuable. Of course media influences aren't going to be the sole reason someone twists off, but to deny any impact from them, in my opinion, is ridiculous. Game on.
32_Footsteps @ Jul 21st 2006 4:28PM
"And thanks, everyone, for proving my point. Thin skinned and reactionary. No chance for an honest conversation."
I note that you don't offer any facts to support your claim. I see that you don't offer any reason to believe that banning violent video games forever will improve any situation. I see that you admit that there are greater causes to the problem than video games, but that you are unwilling to do anything about the greater problem.
And yet, you accuse those that disagree with you of being incapable of an honest conversation. It seems to me that everyone's being honest. However, I don't think the conversation you've offered is, to be blunt, all that useful.
Wonder Cheese @ Jul 21st 2006 4:55PM
"I note that you don't offer any facts to support your claim."
Which claim? Stating that the video game community is thin skinned about any and every criticism is my opinion from observation. If you refer to my view that people's thinking and behavior, particularly youth, are affected by media input (of various types) I'm sure there are plenty of "facts" on both sides. I'm just going on common sense and what I observe. Discussing to what extent people are affected is interesting to me, but if you believe it has zero effect, than I guess we have nothing to discuss.
"I see that you don't offer any reason to believe that banning violent video games forever will improve any situation."
I'm not on that fringe, and I think very few are. Who is talking about banning? Not me, and I don't believe the senator was either. So I'm not sure what you misunderstood.
"I see that you admit that there are greater causes to the problem than video games, but that you are unwilling to do anything about the greater problem."
Of course I admit that there are greater causes. But I'm not simply going to deny that video games have any influence whatsoever. As for whether I'm willing to do anything about the greater problem, that's quite a large scope issue. My belief that poverty will never be completely eradicated does not in any way mean I don't think that it should be addressed. You seem to be attributing things to my comments that I didn't mean at all.