New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

November 10, 2008 -

Despite those well-publicized Barack Obama ads on Xbox Live, some gamers remain leery of the President-elect's views on video games, according to the New York Times.

The NYT's Brian Stelter writes:

Some players say they are concerned about other interruptions to their games that they consider more serious. Blog posts scoring Mr. Obama’s positions on video games have received hundreds of comments, with some readers worrying that his admonitions during the campaign to “put the video games away” signaled new regulations or restrictions on the industry...

A Web site called GamePolitics, established by a pro-gaming consumer advocacy group, pointed out in February that Mr. Obama had given campaign speeches in which games were used as a metaphor for underachievement.

Mr. Obama’s answers to a questionnaire by the nonprofit group Common Sense Media last year echoed the theme. He indicated that he supported parental controls for both television and video games and called on the video game industry to “give parents better information” and improve the voluntary ratings system. “If the industry fails to act, then my administration would,” he wrote.

GP: Seeing GamePolitics cited in the NYT is sweet, even if they did forget to include a link.

UPDATE: The fiery Obama image at left is part of DLC released for Mercenaries 2 by Pandemic Studios.


Comments

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

I do hope that you know that Obama is smarter than associating himself with you. Though I know you wouldnt have a chance of making yourself an acquaintance. Still your actions when you were a lawyer were quite ludicrous and lewd. I have a question for you Mr. Thompson. If the Media like Games and movies do make people into killers, then why isnt Japan all destroyed. After all they have a high level of violent and sexual media in the country? Post our names? What for? Because you do? Doesnt matter. We dont pretend to be others.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

 

So "Da1rocky" is the name your parents gave you?  Fascinating.  Are they incarcerated for child abuse?  Oh, here's the full letter, including letterhead to Ramsey.  Note the disclaimer at the top.  Thanks:

 
John B. Thompson, Juris Doctor*
 

amendmentone@comcast.net

*Not Admitted to Practice Law in Florida

 
November 11, 2008
 
Evan Ramsey, Inmate
Spring Creek Correctional Center
Mile 5 Nash Road
P.O. Box 2109
Seward, Alaska 99664 
 
Re: New Trial
 
Dear Evan:
 
I had the pleasure of speaking with your father about the link between Doom and your actions at Bethel Regional High School a number of years ago. I had been on 60 Minutes about the link between that game and the deaths of my clients’ three daughters in the Paducah school shootings by Michael Carneal.
 
I had predicted “Columbine” on NBC’s Today a week before it happened, predicting the role of Doom in such school-based killings. This, of course, was the game that trained you to kill without your knowing that it was doing so.
 
Some recent brain scan studies at Harvard now prove the link between violent video game play and acts of violence such as what you perpetrated at Bethel. More specifically, since your conviction the US Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons endorsedthis brain scan technology to strike down the juvenile death penalty. This ruling can help you possibly get a new trial, and I am more than happy to try to help you get it. Roper cries out for your new trial.
 
Even more specifically, you should now be examined to see if you suffer from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). If you do, then this ties even further into the neurobiological evidence that we now have. My familiarity with your personal history suggests you have PTSD, as you tried to kill yourself when you were ten. Violent video games are processed in the posterior cingulate in the brain, and this is where post traumatic stress disorder arises. So, your violent video game play, if you have PTSD, was even more likely to lead to violent behaviors over which you had no control. I find your prosecutor’s comments that “some kids are just bad” to be absurd. She obviously has missed the last 200 years of psychology and psychiatry. She also apparently never heard of the Bible.
 
Let me know if you want my help. 

 
Regards, Jack Thompson

So Da1rocky is the name your parents gave you?  Fascinating.  Are they incarcerated for child abuse?  Oh, here's the full letter, including letterhead to Ramsey.  Note the disclaimer at the top.  Thanks:

 

Jack "F**ktard" Thompson

Tell us again why you want us to believe you're now a mental health expert? Slowly now, so you can THINK about what you're saying.

No, scratch that - you've proven once again that you are physically incapable of thinking or telling the truth. YOU'RE LYING ABOUT "PREDICTING" COLUMBINE AGAIN, you were just caught jerking off to the bodies while falsely claiming to be "saving lives." And you repeated this crap with V-Tech and Salt Lake. And have you forgotten again that your absolute opposition to telling the truth is one of the reason you were permanently disbarred? You couldn't even make up a convincing story about having a heart condition... You don't have a heart.

People, let's be honest here. If we want to see anything remotely resembling a sane and even-handed discussion about questionable media content and apparent similarities with real-life crimes, then all the self-claimed moral crusaders - the stupid bastards like Thompson who are guilty as charged of encouraging, aiding and trivializing the real-life crimes to begin with - need to be culled. They can't and don't want to be reasoned with, this they have repeatedly made perfectly clear.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Hey Jack, I didn't realize you were qualified to diagnose psychiatric disorders!

Oh wait, you're not.  Hmm, I wonder what the APA will have to say about your shenanigans?

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Senility setting in early I see?  You already posted this letter fucker.  This constitutes spamming.

 

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Glad you asked.  There are no guns in Japan, and apparently you didn't know that.  Knife killings and attacks are up, though.  Maybe you missed the GTA-related knifing of the cabbie in Thailand.  Most people are aware of that.  Try to keep up with events, please.  Thanks.  Jack Thompson, Once and Future Lawyer  

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Yes we did see some jackass in Thailand try to get out of personal responsibility by clinging to a scapegoat that scum like you try to hand to them.  But try as you might to keep killers on the street you once and always fail.  I would really think that you might realize that Thailand's problems with crime have to do with its illegal sex industry.  But then again as you have shown with the Cody Posey case you don't care if children are raped, as long as they don't play games.

 

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Oh, and as to #1, if it's clear it isn't Michelle Obama, then what's the problem?  You do have a sense of humor even though you're a gamer, right?  I'm one of the few people here that actually uses my real name to post, unlike the legion of anonymous cowards here, and you know I posted this, so your question is rather silly, no?

 

JACK THOMPSON, THAT'S RIGHT, JACK THOMPSON   

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

STFU

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

 

Gamers should not fear my husband, Barack Obama.  His transition team is working with Florida's Jack Thompson, and Jack tells me and Barack that "All we have to fear is pixelated fear itself."  Here is our friend Jack's latest, which falls in line with Obama's promise to federally regulate the video game industry if Take-Two doesn't get its s--t together:

 
November 11, 2008
 
Evan Ramsey, Inmate
Spring Creek Correctional Center
Mile 5 Nash Road
P.O. Box 2109
Seward, Alaska 99664 
 
Re: New Trial
 
Dear Evan:
 
I had the pleasure of speaking with your father about the link between Doom and your actions at Bethel Regional High School a number of years ago. I had been on 60 Minutes about the link between that game and the deaths of my clients’ three daughters in the Paducah school shootings by Michael Carneal.
 
I had predicted “Columbine” on NBC’s Today a week before it happened, predicting the role of Doom in such school-based killings. This, of course, was the game that trained you to kill without your knowing that it was doing so.
 
Some recent brain scan studies at Harvard now prove the link between violent video game play and acts of violence such as what you perpetrated at Bethel. More specifically, since your conviction the US Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons endorsedthis brain scan technology to strike down the juvenile death penalty. This ruling can help you possibly get a new trial, and I am more than happy to try to help you get it. Roper cries out for your new trial.
 
Even more specifically, you should now be examined to see if you suffer from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). If you do, then this ties even further into the neurobiological evidence that we now have. My familiarity with your personal history suggests you have PTSD, as you tried to kill yourself when you were ten. Violent video games are processed in the posterior cingulate in the brain, and this is where post traumatic stress disorder arises. So, your violent video game play, if you have PTSD, was even more likely to lead to violent behaviors over which you had no control. I find your prosecutor’s comments that “some kids are just bad” to be absurd. She obviously has missed the last 200 years of psychology and psychiatry. She also apparently never heard of the Bible.
 
Let me know if you want my help. I am not practicing law, but I was for 32 years, and I can try to get you an Alaska attorney to file the necessary papers to secure a new trial on this newly discovered scientific evidence that relates to your specific situation.
 
Regards, Jack Thompson

 

 

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

I'm sure the prosecuter has heard of the bible.  Its that thing that by your logic should be banned.  Becuase if there is a study that something increases aggression then it should be banned right?  http://www.reuters.com/article/gc08/idUSN0640321320070307

 

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Trying to protect a murder eh Jack?  I guess pondsucm sticks to pondscum.  Sorry though, Evan is responsible for his actions and Evan is going to pay for them.  Video games didn't pull the trigger he did.  So give it up loser.  Go to Thailand and pat them on the back, maybe they will give you some free kids to fuck.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Isn't it illegal to present something like this the way that you did, i.e. endorsed by Michelle Obama, when it clearly isnt?

Isn't it also illegal to solicit legal advice when you aren't a lawyer?

Even more so isn't at the very least extremely unethical to try and put the fix in on a trial?

As an ex-lawyer yourself shouldn't you know this?

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Happy to answer your questions, as follows and in order:

1.  No.

2.  I'm not soliciting legal advice.  Duh.

3.  I'm not trying to fix a trial; I'm trying to undo an injustice.

4.  As a citizen, I apparently know a Hell of a lot more than you do.

Any more questions?  Jack Thompson, J.D.

 

 

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Except that you mean for people to think that she and the President elect endorse you, which they don't. I believe that's called fraud, which I know is illegal.

You are actually soliciting your legal advice to the man in the letter, which I'm pretty sure is expressly illegal since you aren't a lawyer.

You don't care about injustice you care about your legacy, or lack there-of; we've known this for years. Speaking of which I'm sure you'll be ready to come forward about your troubled history to the man you wrote. After all he does deserve to know the source of the legal advice you're trying to give.

Really now? See I'm inclined to believe the opposite. While I may not be as formally educated as some I do happen to read quite a bit, in addition to my gaming, and I'm aware of things you don't seem to be. For example this little thing called thou shalt not bare false witness I'm pretty sure that I know that's in the Ten Commandments. Were you aware of that one or do you ascribe to the "thou shalt not bare false witness, unless you have a good enough reason" belief?

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Nope.  I'm no allowed to pretend I'm a licensed lawyer.   That's it.  I'm still allowed, kids, under the First Amendment, to communicate with people, even with jerkball gamers.  Nice try.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Nope.  I'm no allowed to pretend I'm a licensed lawyer.   That's it.  I'm still allowed, kids, under the First Amendment, to communicate with people, even with jerkball gamers.  Nice try.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

What you aren't allowed doing though is repeatedly dodging your bannings as you have been.  Your cyberstalking of this site and its owner is NOT within your rights.

 

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

This thread is too damn funny. FTW! Anyway, what about those of us over 18 that play games? What can we look forward to with Obama's administration? Parents need to parent and do some homework for themselves. The government has more important things to worry about then the entertainment industry and minors...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

No one seems to realize, in our government and media, that there is NO security that is not broken trivially that relies on an "everyone but" strategy.

What does this mean? Parents have to start watching what their kids buy. Sorry, there's no way to stop them from accessing it. A v-chip is trivial to get around, the rating system? Charge up a visa at wal-mart and order offline. "Yes I'm over 18."

Where is the industry responsible?

The ESRB does NOT give consistant ratings to content. A new board needs to be made with a more concise rating system, and a more thorough examination of the game. Video game companies should also be rating to the MOST SENSITIVE CONSUMERS. This doesn't mean let jack thompson rate the games, as he's not a consumer of them. I'd propose something like this:

G - general audience, safe for anyone

E - Everyone, animated violence (Think cartoon network's superhero shows)

Then add two ratings, one for violent content and one for sexual content, maybe even just use a numbering system. Nothing too complex. Then require game retailers and places that sell used games to maintain an explanation board.

</rambling>

 

Regardless, asociating all gamers with underachievers is a huge mistake. Instead of considering our students work at minimum 40 hour weeks in class and are expected to spend another 20 hours a week out of class MINIMUM, and looking at our failing public school system, we have nutjobs like jack thompson.

So before branding gamers 'idiots', look at what they do to their games.

Look at oblivion, morrowind, unreal tournament, garry's mod, rome total war, and all the other moddable games. It takes many patient, methodical, INTELLIGENT minds to take the hours upon hours to self teach the skills to make these mods.

I'd like to give anyone who thinks these games are for underachievers a few moments in medieval total war or garry's mod with wiremod on it. They'd run away crying.

Though I hate to admit console gamers don't do nearly as much.

 

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

A V-Chip requires a four digit code which has 10000 different possibilities. If a kid orders a game with a credit card then when the bill comes it should serve as a clear signal that the kid bought the game to any parent who's paying attention. Oh and some states all reayd require game stores to maintain a ratings board. Anecdotal evidence we got says it doesn't always work (but then again nobody talks about the times if/when they work).

----------------------------------------------------

"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil

---------------------------------------------------- Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Wow, people sure are blowing up this "put away the video games" thing.

He meant take the time to vote. If that wording set you off, imagine he had said "turn off the TV" or something apparently less flammable.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

exactly. it's not like he said to get rid of them, and whenever I'm done playing, I usually put the controller away rather than leave it on the floor in the middle of the room.

岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

岩「…I can see why Hasselbeck's worried about fake guns killing fake people. afterall, she's a fake journalist on a fake news channel」

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

I just thought of something, if President Obama (or any president for that matter) considers game regulation surely someone would be there to tell them about their sucsess rates in the courts right?

Obama doesn't seem like he would continue trying for legislation once he realizes the likelyhood of it passing. Now if this was Hillary we were talking about ...

----------------------------------------------------

"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil

---------------------------------------------------- Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

I don't think Obama's going to put any kind of concentration on games. He has way too much on his plate as it is.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

It's actually pretty hard to tell what a politician will do based simply on thier Party affiliation or social leanings.  You basically have to wait until they do something, to get a gauge on how they'd respond to other issues down the line.

Republicans - Used to be the Party of small government, but that's a thing of the past.  They spend as much money as Democrats anymore.  They also have to play to their Christian base, since they'd be completely ruined without them.  So it's a toss-up.  A Republican might try to regulate or cencor games to appease their religious constituants, but then again they're just as likely to think they shouldn't interfere with free enterprise.

Democrats - They have a hard time saying no to a new government program, so if a Dem decides games are bad, then they might try to regulate them.  But at the same time, they're "generally" more open to new formats and social change, so they might already be a part of the gamer generation.  Again, a toss-up.  It's different from one Dem to the next.

Conservatives - They hate people telling them what they can do, but don't mind telling others what to do if they don't agree or understnad.  So a conservative would either consider the sales of games to be none of thier business, or would believe they're undermining "core moral values."  You can't really tell which way they'd go until they move.

Liberals - They know better than you about how to live your life (actually not that much different from conservatives, only without the religous slant), so they're not above sticking their fingers into regulation if they think it's for the "greater good".  But they also take free speech very seriously.  How a liberal will react to games is anyone's guess.

So you see, base your predictions on a person's record and words.  Not on their labels.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Funny when I hear people say they want to legalize certain drugs, or gay marraige because it's none of their business what people do, they usually get called liberals. I think the word's been mangled so much nobody knows what it means anymore.

Same with conservative. A lot of people say they're true conservatives and when they tell me what that means it sounds a bit like diet libertarian.

I just forget those two labels entirely myself. Funny though that hippie, fundamentalist and libertarian still mean the same exact thing (not trying to compare the three, I agree with libertarians myself about 65% of the time).

----------------------------------------------------

"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil

---------------------------------------------------- Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

"Funny when I hear people say they want to legalize certain drugs, or gay marraige because it's none of their business what people do, they usually get called liberals."

That's just it.  Liberals are only open to certain types of things, if they believe it won't harm anyone else.  It's just that their definition of "harm" is different from conservatives.

A Liberal would think gay marriage is ok, while conservatives think it would corrupt family values.  A conservative would think you have the right to choose your meals, while a liberal would want warning labels on fatty foods and maybe even consider it a form of child abuse to let a child eat too many cheezeburgers.  A liberal would let you light up a joint, but then condemn you for smoking a cigarette.

Simply put, both conservatives and liberals would have reasons to try and regulate games.  A conservative could think they are a corrupting influence on values, while a liberal could think that they cause psychological issues.  Either way, the liberal and the conservative would think they're in the right to tell you whether you can play that game or not, or if you can buy it for your child or not.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

You make some nice points but look in more detail.

You accuse the liberal for censorship for wanting people to have more information on the food that they eat.  That is not the same as telling them they CAN'T eat it, just that they will know they are consuming huge amounts of calories, fat and salt.

The child abuse angle, is close but not quite right - there is certainly a requirement on the part of a parent to look after a child's welfare and if they are giving them something that is making them sick or effecting their health, when it becomes as extreme as some kids I've seen, someone needs to step in, even if it is just giving the parent some help in the kitchen.  Sometimes assistance is better than sanction.

As for the cigarettes and joints, I don't think a liberal would condemn you for smoking either, just as long as you weren't smoking it in a place where others could get lung cancer by proxy.

And yes, all of these above points, I agree with as someone who votes liberal democrat in the UK.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

"A conservative would think you have the right to choose your meals, while a liberal would want warning labels on fatty foods and maybe even consider it a form of child abuse to let a child eat too many cheezeburgers.  A liberal would let you light up a joint, but then condemn you for smoking a cigarette."

This could not be further from the truth, but go right ahead fooling yourself into thinking that all liberals just want to take your rights and your fun away. I mean, they're anti-morality, right? Nothing but abortions and gay orgies and drug overdoses, 24/7! You've got those dirty libs pegged!

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Hear Fucking Hear!

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Remember that Obama wants to reimpose the fairness doctrine (exclusively on radio, because it is the only area of media where conservatives are the majority, while leaveing TV alone, because the majority of the networks are left leaning) to silence his foes.

 

 

He doesn't care for the first amendment there, he won't care with videogames.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

In June 2008, Barack Obama's presidential campaign said that he "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," but that he "considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," adding, "That is why Senator Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.".

Really?

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

he also said he plans to cut taxes for 95% of people, when 40% don't pay taxes to cut.

 

 

He is a politican.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Wrong.  He said that for 95% of people the 2% tax rise would not effect them and that for these people, most would actually benefit.  This is not the same as suggesting he would cut taxes for 95% of people and leave the upper 5% alone.  I think you need to work on your statistics.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Funny thing about the fairness doctrine, it only works one way.  Stations with conservative talkshows have to make changes, but the few stations with liberal talkshows don't have to let conservatives on the radio.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

  I hope your right Uh... but my natural cynicism doubts it.

  I am willing to bet that within his first 100 days in office President Obama will have passed more than one law that a minimum of 51% of the country openly opposes.  Then that participatory government you mentioned will be right out the window.

  The Democrat Party has been out of power for too long to let a little thing like the "Will of the People" stand in their way.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Because 51% of the people were totally against health care for children, for keeping our troops in Iraq, and for deregulating everything to the point where the economy collapses because there's not more rules to govern how business is run.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

uh, 1.a lot are against it when it is rationed and provideds a horrible quality of care (sounds like a lot of goverment programs acctualy...) 2.how many are for uncondtional surender? 3.No, it was goverment regulation and programs that caused this. The "community reinvestment act" forced banks to make loans that would not be repaided to them, then Fannie and Freddie came along and said "we'll buy these loans" and when you have a giant goverment sponsered group with CEO's  (who LTIC were close to Obama and donated quite a bit too him)that cook books to fraudlently show profits in order to get big bonus AND a large portion of assets in something that is shaky on the prospect of return at best, it falling appart was only a matter of time. Conveintly said act and goverment sposered companys...

.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

I'm against healthcare for the children, especially when it defines child as someone from 0-25 years old and would include illegal immigrants. 

Also, in 2003 and 2004, the Republicans and a few Democrats tried to regulate the banks, but the majority of Democrats said they were just trying to keep minorities from owning property.  Glad that played out well.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Actually it wasn't an influx of lower income people that crashed the housing market. It was an abuse of the rules by wealthy nitwits who got greedy and wanted to "flip" houses and property. Surprise, surprise the bubble popped because of abuses in the system, not from the people who actually played by the rules in a legitimate fashion.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

 Detailed reports on the recent economy crash gives the blame to dozens of factors, and not just a singular source.  Banks were at fault for giving adjustable rate loans out to anyone regardless of income or credit history.  House buyers were guilty for buying houses that are outside of their financial means.  Realtors were guilty for trying to sell the most expensive houses they could rather than the best houses for their customers.  The blame lies with everyone, not just some rich fat-cats and not some singular politician nor political party.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

...Something that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

I never said it was the poor people who crashed it; I said it was the democrats who called racism when people suggested regulating it.  Look at Mr. Raines, he made off with 240 million dollars.

No, the low income people just fucked up their own credit rating.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

100 days is really generous... His party alreddy plans to ban off shore drilling when the new congress comes about, even though the vast majority of the US wants it.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Vast majority, huh? Guess that's why the GOP lost the electoral and the popular vote, eh?

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

I must admit that I am a little worried about possible anti-game sentiments producing attempted game legislation in a Democratic D.C. However given the circumstances and what was at stake this election, I will take on this fight, than fight another Bush administration (McCain and Palin). This is why I do not regret voting for Obama, and I also feel his anti-game rhetoric is just that--rhetoric.


Once again I will reiterate that we must stick together and lobby congress for our rights. We elected these people, and with enough e-mails, phone calls, faxes, and letters, they will listen to us. This is the participatory government which Obama has promised the American people, and we should take him up on his offer.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

I could be wrong, but Obama doesn't really MAKE laws, his job is to veto bad ones, isn't it?

In the end, he can stop bad laws, but can't really MAKE them, so he is either neutral or good.

Unfortunately, what we REALLY need to do is focus on Congress. They are where bad laws come from.

If they make it past those two, then we need to count on the Supreme Court to stand by the Constitution.

If that fails, then we must stand together to show that a significant portion of the adult population won't stand for it.

If that fails... then we have failed as a people.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

But will he veto bad laws? That's the burning question. If it's proposed by Democrats, the answer is probably no.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Actually the question is will he go longer without a veto as Bush did with the Republican Congress.  He holds a record not since seen since Thomas Jefferson. 

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

How do you feel about Amazon buying Twitch?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelantehttp://m.tickld.com/x/something-you-never-realized-about-guardians-of-the-galaxy Right in the feels.08/29/2014 - 6:56pm
AvalongodAgain I think we're conflating the issue of whether Sarkeesian's claims are beyond critique (no they're not) and whether its ever appropriate to use sexist language, let alone physical threats on a woman to intimidate her (no it isn't)08/29/2014 - 5:04pm
prh99Trolling her or trying to assail her integrity just draws more attention (Streisand effect?). Which is really not what the trolls want, so the only way to win (if there is a win to be had) is not to play/troll.08/29/2014 - 5:02pm
prh99Who cares, just don't watch the damn videos if you don't like her. Personally, I don't care as far as she is concerned as long there are interesting games to be played.08/29/2014 - 4:34pm
Andrew EisenZip - And yet, you can't cite a single, solitary example. (And no one said you hated anyone. Along those lines, no one claimed Sarkeesian was perfect either.)08/29/2014 - 3:51pm
Andrew EisenSaint's Row: Gat Out of Hell was just announced for PC, PS3, PS4, Xbox 360 and Xbox One making it the 150th game For Everything But Wii U! Congratulations Deep Silver!08/29/2014 - 3:49pm
ZippyDSMleeI do not hate them jsut think its mostly hyperlobe.08/29/2014 - 3:40pm
Andrew EisenSleaker - I'd say that's likely. From my experience, most who have a problem with Sarkeesian's videos either want to hate them in the first place (for whatever reason) or honestly misunderstand what they're about and what they're saying.08/29/2014 - 3:16pm
james_fudgeWe appreciate your support :)08/29/2014 - 2:55pm
TechnogeekIt gives me hope that maybe, just maybe, the gaming community is not statistically indistinguishable from consisting entirely of people that your average Xbox Live caricature would look at and go "maybe you should tone it down a little bit".08/29/2014 - 2:49pm
TechnogeekI just want to say that while I've disagreed with the staff of this site on several occasions, it's still good to see that they're not automatically dismissing Anita's videos as a "misandrist scam" or whatever the preferred dismissive term is these days.08/29/2014 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightZippy, So you can't find even one?08/29/2014 - 1:04pm
ZippyDSMleeAndrew Eisen:Right because shes prefect and never exaggerates... *rolls eyes*08/29/2014 - 12:53pm
SleakerAnd honestly, nearly all of the games she references, or images she depicts I've always cringed at and wondered why they were included in games to begin with, from pinups through explicit sexual depictions or direct abuse. I think it's cheap storytelling.08/29/2014 - 12:35pm
Sleaker@AE - aren't most people fundamentally misunderstanding her at this point? haha.. On a related note I think a lot of the backlash is coming from males that think she is telling them their 'Generic Male Fantasy' is bad and wrong.08/29/2014 - 12:33pm
Andrew EisenAnd no, I don't think the female community would be upset over the performance of a case study in and of itself. Possibly the mostivations behind such a study, the methodology or conclusions but not the mere idea of a case study.08/29/2014 - 12:29pm
Andrew EisenAmusingly, these videos aren't saying you can't/shouldn't use tropes or that sexual representations are inherently problematic so those are very silly things to have a problem with and indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the series.08/29/2014 - 12:29pm
SleakerDo you think the female community would get extremely angry over a male doing a case study on the negative impact of sex-novels and their unrealistic depiction of males and how widespread they are in american culture?08/29/2014 - 12:25pm
SleakerThe other thing that people might find problematic is that they see no problem with sexual representations of females (or males) in games. And realistically, why is there anything wrong with sexual representations in fiction?08/29/2014 - 12:24pm
SleakerTo even discuss or bring up these issues at a cultural level to begin with. Going straight for games to many probably feels like a huge overstepping given that it's interactive story in many cases, and when you're telling a story why can't you use tropes.08/29/2014 - 12:21pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician