Bonnie Ruberg Ponders Whether Video Game Issue Will Decide Her Vote

April 13, 2008 -
When you cast your ballot for the next president, will the candidate's stance on video game issues decide your vote?

It's a worthy question, and one that Bonnie Ruberg of Heroine Sheik asks herself:
The [presidential] primaries are front-page news even here [in France], and there’s a big election coming up in my home state of Pennsylvania, so French people always want to know, “Do you support Hilary or Obama?” Truth is though, I honestly don’t know...

When I try to explain my dilemma to a French person though, I always find myself falling back on the “Hilary wants to censor video games” angle though. And what do I get in response? Awkward stares that say, “You wouldn’t really vote for someone on the basis of video games, would you?”

The question is, would I? ...I really do think Hillary’s approach could be detrimental to our art form–especially if she’s the leader of the whole frickin’ country... Then again, Obama is no shiny light of tech positivism either. Al Gore, I miss you.

Comments

Re: Bonnie Ruberg Ponders Whether Video Game Issue Will Decide

Good day!
It is very informative and has a very good quality in it.
I like it...

<a href= "http://www.squidoo.com/MPI"> www.Squidoo.com/MPI </a>
<a href= "http://mliragana.blogspot.com/"> mliragana.blogspot.com </a>

Thank you very much for your time.
 

Re: Bonnie Ruberg Ponders Whether Video Game Issue Will Decide

if  hillary wins shell fuck up  and if she dont get impeached after tht then if she messes with videogames all hell will break loose literally cause her kids will hate her, any other kids or teens who play games will hate her, hell game companies will call her a bitch everytime they see her, you fools on here thk video games arent important damn it accounts for our fuckin economy being fed money face it Hilary you dont know shit bout Americas needs

in the immortal words of Stan Lee

NUFF SAID

I'm not voting for a candidate who's willing to try to pick and choose for me what is and isn't acceptable for me to view in terms of media, or willing to try and blame our national problems on a media format either.

Obama, while stating that he did think that video games are a waste of time, made no indication that he'd seek an outright ban. It rang more of opinion than trying to mandate a fact

Naive little girl.. like al gore would have been any better....


I know one of the main reasons I'm not voting for Hilary is because of the video game "angle" Its incredibly important to me and I wouldn't have any problem telling someone that was the sole reason I wouldn't vote for her, whether it was or not.

It pretty much shows she is just like any other two faced politician, doing whatever she can to get elected and in this case hiding behind the age old protect the children/ family values platform. "Why wont anyone think of the children?!"

Hilary wants to censor games and Obama isn't to far behind saying that games are a waste of time.

I say vote for McCain.

Think of all the important issues that are part of this election, such as the War in Iraq, our economic crisis, civil liberties, the health care system, and immigration. If what drives you to vote or not vote for a candidate is their stance on video games, then you are an ignorant, uniformed voter that is a disgrace to our democratic system.

@PheonixZero

How about 'All mangled and killed'

That would be a great option for some elections.

I'm not voting for Hilary because of her stance on games. If Hilary came in power she would censor games more then Germany does.

It is a shame that Obama and Hilary are the only ones running...

ah crap, primaries comment withdrawn

"Al Gore, I miss you."

Yeah, protecting the world from ManBearPig.

You super cereal??? :P

I am Canadian and the same thing happens here. Newspapers flooded with info on the election. My roommate is from the U.S. and I have asked him he same question and he always seems to have a "meh" approach to the question. I think it is due to a lack of meaningful candidates this year. I hate how in your county, Minority candidates not even bother running, because they get s***canned media coverage and no support in a handful of states anyway. The largest disappointment is that there were a few decents among them, this time around.
As far as the video game issue goes, feel it is a very good reason for voting if it is a reason that affects you, which, in this case it seems to affect Bonnie. The problem is all the "video games are evil, Jack Thompsons" who are going to vote FOR her for the video game reason, but on the other, anti-game angle. I bet the amount of the anti-game public who would vote for that reason far outweigh the amount of the voting age who are voting against her because of her stance on games. She doesn't support the outright Ban of games, which is a positive. But she does support a Ban to minors, which, though against the first amendment does keep our antagonists, like Jack T, at bay, and would lighten the load on the issue. She is pretty liberal about the other issues I care about.. but alas, not a resident of the U.S.

@JDC

I know, it's ridiculous. Ron Paul is an amazing constitutionalist and libertarian, but because he is against the war, the republican party won't nominate him.

Hilary's stance on video games is troubling in itself, but more importantly, it's a warning flag concerning her general attitudes. It demonstrates that she's willing--even eager--to trample the First Amendment rights of a substantial group of citizens for no supportable reason. She doesn't believe gamers represent a large enough voting bloc to be worth protecting, and they are thus fair game for rights violations, especially if she thinks she can wring a few more votes out of it.

I don't want another President who regards the Constitution as nothing more than an inconvenience.

I am for obama or macain.

I don't trust anyone that thinks that "Video Games Violence" is a Real Issue...

Actually, the Republican party won't nominate Ron Paul because he didn't get enough delegates, because not many people voted for him. And I think that's because the media wouldn't give him a fair shake during the campaign. So, blame the people, blame the Party, blame the media. It doesn't matter, in the end no one voted for him.

As for the issue at hand, voting on gaming issues goes beyond gaming. It's a barometer for several, more important issues that the general public does care about. If a canidate is against gaming legislation, then it says of them:

--They aren't looking for scapegoats to societies problems in the media
--They are somewhat savy on modern technological issues (like video games as adult entertainment, internet related issues, etc)
--They are for protecting the First Ammendment, even when it isn't popular

And a canidate for legislation is basically the opposite, and pandering to frightened parents.

Hillary hates the rest of the Constitution, so, no, her stance on games hardly matters at this point. That's like asking if rabies would affect my choice of which pack of wolves to be eaten alive by. McCain and Obama aren't much better either.

Hilary Clinton had full speeches about video games being harmful so that would effect my vote if I was American and not a minor. But Obama said kids should be more active, and play outside. He never applied baning sells to minors, or censorship. If he starts programs to get kids into bike rides, play sports or what ever, I think that would be great.

Well the thing is is if a candidate is willing to censor an entire media based on inconclusive reports (has there ever been a scientific report that really says violent games absolutely cause violence in society) how far would that candidate go under the guise of “protecting society”? Really, what would be next?

GP: Who gets to decide, for example, whether content is “dangerous”? What does that mean, exactly? Does violent content make media dangerous? Is Manhunt 2 dangerous? Call of Duty 4? Saving Private Ryan? Beowulf? The Bible?

I can't say video games would be a deciding factor for me. While I agree that it is a barometer for other values, like Are'el pointed out, I'm more concerned about health care, the economy, and the war in Iraq.

If Hillary was headlining her campaign with video game regulation, and claiming it was the very first thing she would address in office, and there was nothing else more important than video game regulation at this time in America, then I'd be more concerned. But she is not.

Just dont vote for Hillary Clinton. Vote who ever you want to vote but not Hillary Clinton. Vote George Bush if you want LOL!

I have a question for the people in here: Who is Bonnie Ruberg & for what reason should her opinion matter to me? Is she a noted political reporter or activist for expression rights?

I'm just trying to understand why, aside from the obvious fact that there's politics & games involved in the story, this is deemed significant enough to post since there's doubtlessly thousands of other politics+games posts floating around. Many of the comments on GP stories spring to mind and not just those made by me...

I think Bonnie could respond as Hillary's stance on video games to be indicative of something larger. Is she taking video games as an easy scapegoat? Does that mean that she really believes them the cause of societies ills? Will that be her solution to everything, i.e. to just find a scapegoat? If she explained that to her French friends, I think they would understand better.

Apparently there isn't a republican running this year...

Double Post, sorry.

Aliasalpha, it is not about her, exactly, but the question she brings up. which is a good one. Would we really vote for a candidate based on their video game stance? If a neo-nazi, for example (godwin's law, I know) came up and supported games, would we vote for him/her for it? How about someone who supported games but was determined to reinstate a draft and stay in Iraq for years to come? Or supported the RIAA? Or had other really negative policies, but supported games?

I'm gong to say yes (if I was American), if only for what it meant outside of games- as an example, Hillary's eagerness to censor shows an alarming disregard for freedom of speech, and the fact that it's games she's censoring shows how out of touch with the modern world she is.

These are two "qualities" I don't want in somebody

I'm gong to say yes, if only for what it meant outside of games- as an example, Hillary's eagerness to censor shows an alarming disregard for freedom of speech, and the fact that it's games she's censoring shows how out of touch with the modern world she is.

These are two "qualities" I don't want in somebody running the vast majority of the western world.

/b

Please help vote to get rid of her, almost no one outside of america wants to see her as president. Actually a lot of them want Obama as president, me included. She is one of the most negative people I have ever seen and has actually indicated that the republican canditate (McCain) would be a better president than her democratic rival (Obama). That's small potatoes compared to everything else she's done though. I won't go into too much detail here, just go to CNN or something.

Obama 08' I hope, if only I could be American for a day...

I've decided my vote, but if I hadn't already, the video game thing would have tipped it.

well...It's not the most important issue out there, but I suppose you could argue the whole censorship of videogames could lead to other medias being censored and the total abolishment of our rights.

Or you could argue that someone stupid enough to really believe videogames cause violence couldn't be trusted to make any choices about our country.

Or you could just use the fact thats she has already lied to us so you can't trust her.
Sinbad watch out! theres a sniper behind that little eight year old girl hunging the first lady!

Small correction hunging=hugging
Curse you no edit feature!

I would not vote for anyone that is anti-First Amendment(like Hitlery Clinton).

@ Bonnie Ruberg(I'm pretty sure she'll be reading this eventually):

Al Gore isn't and wouldn't have been any better, considering that when he was running for President against George W. Bush, he was heavily promoting that he would legislate against all entertainment(all while collecting their campaign contributions, making him a hypocrite), while Bush was saying he'd work with the entertainment industry.

Plus, Gore had Lieberman(One of the industry's biggest critics at the time) as his Vice Presidental candidate, and Gore's wife, Tipper, was one of the people whining about heavy metal music in the early 80's, and Al himself held a Congressional hearing on the music industry(the famous one with Frank Zappa, John Denver, and Dee Snider defending the music industry).

jo says:
"Apparently there isn’t a republican running this year… "

That's not really important at the moment, because McCain is "locked in." What's interesting right now is who he's going to be running against. Obama, or Clinton?

Besides, McCain is not a good choice from a gamer's perspective. He opposes making Net Neutrality official, and believes that the telecoms have a right to parcel up the internet into fast and slow traffic if they want to (or even block content if they so choose). Meanwhile, Obama and Clinton favor Net Neutrality.

Now that I think about it, Ron Paul would probably (I don't know) be against any bills for Net Neutrality himself, if what I know of his stances are any indication.

@BearDogg-X

Dee Snider, wasn't he with Twisted Sister?

OH COME THE FUCK ON! VOTING ON FUCKING GAMES?! WHAT ARE YOU TWO?

There are ACTUAL fucking issues you dipshits. Like health care, the economy (FYI it's not doing too hot because for the last half century, rich assholes have been mismanaging it to maximize their profits), oil (y'know, that stuff we rely on for nearly everything right now? well that's running out), climate change, war.

Weather or not a candidate is going to be pissy and impotent about regulating video games is WAAAAAY the fuck down on the list of things you should be wondering about when you're looking at a candidate for president.

The fact is that Obama and Hillary are nearly identical political entities. Video game legislation will decide my vote, and I have already cast it for Obama.

The other problem is that video game legislation is costly, unconstitutional, and potentially a slippery slope. Worse yet, this type of legislation draws attention from the real problems America's youth faces today, and the real sources of criminal behavior: poverty, low life chances, drug neighborhoods, and domestic abuse, to name a few causes. I see video games as an issue that definitely affects most Americans whether they want to believe it or not.

*shrug* people vote for all sorts of seemingly unimportant single-stance-issues.

I mean come on, look at the huge numbers who voted for Bush because of the gay marriage angel.... and that was an issue that didn't even effect the ones voting for him.

If I were American, I would absolutely allow a politician's stance on games to temper my vote (meaning I am not a fan of Hillary). Why shouldn't I? Gaming is one of my biggest hobbies, and I'm starting a career in the industry; why shouldn't something like freedom of speech, my hobby and my career come into play when making a decision like that? I always get strange looks when I state my stance on video game issues like that because of the perceived childishness of video games, but it's an issue that revolves around my artistic values, personal recreation and job - if that's no reason to consider the issue seriously, I don't know what is.

Hell, people should be glad that voters are paying enough attention to vote on any issue at all.

"*shrug* people vote for all sorts of seemingly unimportant single-stance-issues.

I mean come on, look at the huge numbers who voted for Bush because of the gay marriage angel…. and that was an issue that didn’t even effect the ones voting for him. "

Because equal protections and rights are SOOOOOooooOOOO unimportant.

I'm voting against Hilary because she is threatening censorship on video games. What else is she going to try to censor? Gas prices? The war? Health Insurance?

censorship never stops at just one medium. Hillary wins with video games, then goes on to movies and television. next thing you know, you can't read certain books or say certain words.

Hillary is pro-censorship on all levels and anti-Constitution.

@Ohma

I ment that the people voting for bush (and thus against gay rights) were generally people not effected by the laws.

@Ohma: Health care, economy, oil, climate change, war, THE CONSTITUTION.

Yeah, I'd say those are all pretty important.

The thing is, Obama, whether or not he is opposed to videogames, he is, both economically and socially, a leftist. As an economic leftist, he is more for government regulation of the economy. While he may not ban video games for violent content [if elected], that doesn't mean he and the rest of the government won't stick their noses in the industry.
I'm not a huge fan of McCain, but I'd choose him over Clinton or Obama. Clinton is manipulative, phony, and lacks experience. Obama not only lacks experience, but he also has poor judgement. Look at the people he associates himself and his family with. Plus, he did virtually nothing as senator. He opposed the war from the start, sure, but he did not vote against it, making the point that he opposed it totally moot.
McCain really isn't my choice, but taking a look at who we have running, I'd choose him. But only because Paul won't get the nomination.

"Besides, McCain is not a good choice from a gamer’s perspective. He opposes making Net Neutrality official, and believes that the telecoms have a right to parcel up the internet into fast and slow traffic if they want to (or even block content if they so choose). Meanwhile, Obama and Clinton favor Net Neutrality."

Just because he is against making it official does not mean he is opposed to it. As a republican, he believes that each state should make their own decision on things. Obviously, he wants the states to have a say in it.

I hated hillary long before the video game issue.

Look, I care about free speech and the freedom to make and play any video game you want, but I don't think that it should be a deal-breaker as far as voting is concerned. There is the war in Iraq, corporate corruption, failing schools, and so many, many other things that are on my mind right now.

I honestly don't think that the president will be spending that much time on video games, whoever it is. Notice that video game legislation tends to be more at the state level. I am voting for Obama, and I am much more concerned about bringing my friends who are serving in Iraq home safe and sound.

If we vote based only on this one issue, then we are no better than the people that vote only on abortion and gay marriage. I like to believe we are better and more intelligent than that. I have always been and always will be a vocal supporter of free speech, but that is a battle that I believe will be fought on the state level, not on the national stage.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteHey look, Nintendo figured out folders on the Wii U. I mean, yeah, they figured out folders on the 3DS several years ago, but these are BETTER! These... uhh... actually display the full folder name on the home screen instead of just the first letter...09/30/2014 - 9:19am
Technogeek(Yeah, it's not game related, but my brother is a car nerd and loves to bring this up whenever there's an excuse to laugh at CNN.)09/30/2014 - 8:48am
TechnogeekDid someone say "actual knowledge ruins the news"? http://jalopnik.com/how-much-can-cnn-get-wrong-about-f1-engines-physics-in-111142340509/30/2014 - 8:47am
NeenekoHeh. PoliSci tends to ruin the news. Kinda like how being a gamer tends to ruin mainstream game stories, any actual knowledge in a field highlights how poorly it is reported.09/30/2014 - 8:30am
MechaTama31Heh. I don't think you need a master's in politics to see that... ;)09/30/2014 - 7:32am
Matthew WilsonTrust me i read the same sites.I have a Master's in Applied Politics. I get to see through the spin both Left and Right that tend to be put on news stories.09/30/2014 - 1:02am
WymorenceI also have an extremely hard time in listening to people who froth at the mouth when the POTUS does something almost identical to the previous POTUS, but for some reason is subhuman for it this time around09/30/2014 - 12:43am
WymorenceThe problem is that opposing views are a good thing, but sites like Brietbart and their ilk are the exact opposite. 9/10 times they tweak the news to benefit their own views instead of just giving their own side of it.09/30/2014 - 12:41am
james_fudgeIf I were in a cult I might try and shut myself away from opposing views...09/29/2014 - 11:48pm
james_fudgeoh and Nate Silver and Politico too.09/29/2014 - 11:48pm
james_fudgeI read a lot of sites every day, Drudge, Breitbart, Huffpo, DailKOS, Red State, Fox, MSNBC, CNN and i'm not infected. Time for people to get thicker skins.09/29/2014 - 11:46pm
james_fudgeNeo_DrKefka: you do know you visited "one of those sites" when you posted that article, right?09/29/2014 - 11:44pm
E. Zachary KnightOcarina of Time done up in the Link to the Past engine? You know I would buy this day one if it were official. http://kotaku.com/fans-are-remaking-ocarina-of-time-in-2d-164059481909/29/2014 - 11:14pm
MaskedPixelantehttps://twitter.com/raymond03155046/status/516735796754522113 "We're fundraising for the group who helped our pets out in their time of need." "lol ur just doing this for the money get over your cat."09/29/2014 - 9:26pm
MechaTama31https://www.humblebundle.com/store/p/dontmove_storefront <-- This looks like it might be the most incredible dollar I'll ever spend.09/29/2014 - 9:12pm
Matthew WilsonI agree. the same for MSNBC as well. both of them can go away, but like it or not its a free market and fox news make allot of money sadly.09/29/2014 - 7:46pm
quiknkoldI'm an independent voter. Vote Blue and Red. so I dont really visit any specific news sites(Though I know FoxNews can take a flying leap off a bridge)09/29/2014 - 7:02pm
quiknkoldFactcheck.org. there you go. neither left or right. straight down the center.09/29/2014 - 7:01pm
Craig R.When a website's tinfoil isn't enough, add your own!09/29/2014 - 6:32pm
Andrew EisenWe used to have a reader who constantly posted DailyKOS articles in the Shout box. I was amazed, not so much by the amazing and horrifically disingenuous spin the site put on these articles, but that our reader would add his own spin on top of it!09/29/2014 - 6:05pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician