Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

October 25, 2010 -

As the case surrounding a law he originally authored makes its way to the Supreme Court next week, California State Senator Leland Yee issued a handful of comments related to what will eventually be a landmark decision for gamers.

The Court will, of course, hear oral arguments for Schwarzenegger v EMA on Tuesday, November 2 at 10:00 AM.

Yee said he was “hopeful” that the Court would give “parents a valuable tool to protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games.”

Yee additionally claimed that SCOTUS has "often ruled" in favor of protecting kids and limiting their access, citing topics such as "pornography, gambling, marriage, firearms, jury duty, tobacco, alcohol, voting, abortion, licenses, and the death penalty" as examples.

Yee continued:

Parents – not retailers or game makers – should be able to decide whether or not their children can play in a world of murder and violence that often degrades women and racial minorities. The video game industry should not be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.

The state senator continued to claim that the interactive nature of games makes them “vastly different” than other forms of media, saying that their immersion “results in a more powerful experience and potentially dangerous learned behavior in children and youth.”

Yee added:

… parents can easily discern if other forms of media are appropriate for their children, whereas violent video games can contain hundreds of hours of footage with the most atrocious, racist, and sexist content often reserved for the highest levels.”

 

Comments

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

American politicians are so strange... one minute they decry government action as communism (for the record, it's socialism), the next minute they demand that their government go out of its way to "protect the children".

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

In their defense, thanks to the red scare, they likely don't know the difference between communism and socialism.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

And most of the time they break out "socialism" incorrectly too.

Republicans call the recent healthcare law (you know, the one that forces everyone to buy health insurance from PRIVATE CORPORATIONS) socialist.  People in countries that are ACTUALLY socialist laugh at the very idea.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

"pornography, gambling, marriage, firearms, jury duty, tobacco, alcohol, voting, abortion, licenses, and the death penalty"

And if you think video games are similar to marriages, the death penalty or drivers licenses ...

No I'm sorry, no one is that fucking stupid.

"whereas violent video games can contain hundreds of hours of footage with the most atrocious, racist, and sexist content often reserved for the highest levels.”

Ladies and gentlemen these are the lying assholes who think they have the moral high ground to judge what's appropriate for your kids. I don't think I need to say anything else.

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

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.

---------------------------------------------------- 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: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

 "Parents – not retailers or game makers OR THE GOVERNMENT – should be able to decide whether or not their children can play"

There you go Mr Yee... fixed that for you...

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

"Parents – not retailers or game makers – should be able to decide whether or not their children can play in a world of murder and violence that often degrades women and racial minorities."

Given that the law in question prohibits the sale of certain kinds of games to minors, it seems to me that what you really want is for parents to have the luxury of not making any kind of decision, relying instead on retailers to not sell such games to their children.

Why do governments reward parental inaction by catering to armchair parents such as those who can't be bothered to know the games their kids are playing? Enough is enough! Leave parenting to the parents.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

Or more importantly, he wants a tool for parrents to stop (or at least make more difficult) for OTHER parents to choose differntly for their children.  This is why I tend to be so skeptical of these 'parents' groups since often they seem less concerned about parenting themselves and more concerned with making sure other people parent their way.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

I'm usually of the notion that most "Parents groups" are mtade up of rich parents who can afford nannies to do it for them, giving them time to worry abou this crap.

Explains why they seem to know dick about kids.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

I'm no fan of the law, obviously, but I don't really see it making it more difficult for parents to make decisions for their children -- it explicitly allows adults to buy any game they want for their children/grandchildren/nieces/nephews.

Of course, as Frank Zappa noted back when records were destroying the youth of America and needed to be kept out of their hands, 8-year-olds aren't walking around unattended with money in their pockets.  If they get access to inappropriate content, it's not because they walked into a store and bought it themselves.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

While it will not legally 'stop' parents, it does mean they have to put in extra steps in order to let their kids access the content... moving from 'ok by default, parent steps in when not ok' to 'not ok by default, parent steps in when ok' is not a huge barrier, but it still is one.

There is also the 'chilling effect' which would likely reduce the availablity in the region, and of course there is stigma associated with going out of your way to allow your kids to do something that other parents do not.. by requiring that explicit step you increase that stigma and make it more visible.  Kinda like underaged drinking.

So we have a de-facto barrier rather then a de jure one.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

"While it will not legally 'stop' parents, it does mean they have to put in extra steps in order to let their kids access the content... moving from 'ok by default, parent steps in when not ok' to 'not ok by default, parent steps in when ok' is not a huge barrier, but it still is one."

That only works if you assume there are unaccompanied minors walking into game stores and buying M-rated games.  As I said, I don't really see that as something that happens in real life.

"There is also the 'chilling effect' which would likely reduce the availablity in the region"

I've spoken at length about the chilling effect.  I believe it's grossly exaggerated.  Major retailers already don't sell M-rated games to minors; this won't affect their store policy one whit.

"and of course there is stigma associated with going out of your way to allow your kids to do something that other parents do not"

Letting your kids play M-rated games is ALREADY doing something that other parents do not.

"Kinda like underaged drinking."

Ugh, NOW who's comparing video games to alcohol?

It's a flawed comparison, for reasons people have already pointed out ad nauseam in this thread.  Alcohol is proven to be dangerous, violent games are not.

Moreover, this may vary state to state, but at least where I live, it's not legal to give alcohol to a minor even if it's your own child.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

"That only works if you assume there are unaccompanied minors walking into game stores and buying M-rated games.  As I said, I don't really see that as something that happens in real life."

It depends on where you live. In cities with good public transporation it is not unusual to see minors moving about without their parents. Since the age limit at issue is 18, you can be sure there are plenty of minors who would otherwise be able to buy games entirely on their own.

"Major retailers already don't sell M-rated games to minors; this won't affect their store policy one whit."

It affects those retailers who don't have such policies in place, and it also affects those retailers whose policies would allow the sale of games with a less restrictive ESRB rating than the government's mandatory "18 only" rating.

"Letting your kids play M-rated games is ALREADY doing something that other parents do not."

Other parents being those who don't let their kids play M-rated games, as opposed to those who do? That's like saying parents who sign their kids up for soccer are doing something other parents do not, or that parents who spank their children are doing something others do not. When you're the one defining the groups, it doesn't help much to point out that the one group is different from the other.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

"Since the age limit at issue is 18, you can be sure there are plenty of minors who would otherwise be able to buy games entirely on their own."

I'll acknowledge a 16- or 17-year-old could easily be walking around with $60 in his pocket.  But I doubt changing the "Think of the children!" rallying cry to "Think of the 16-year-olds!" would gain a lot of traction.

"It affects those retailers who don't have such policies in place"

Every major retailer restricts sales of M-rated games to minors, and the "chilling effect" argument doesn't really apply to mom-and-pop stores.

"it also affects those retailers whose policies would allow the sale of games with a less restrictive ESRB rating than the government's mandatory "18 only" rating."

That I'll grant.  The language of the bill is far too broad.

"That's like saying parents who sign their kids up for soccer are doing something other parents do not, or that parents who spank their children are doing something others do not. When you're the one defining the groups, it doesn't help much to point out that the one group is different from the other."

You're being obtuse.  Letting your children consume media that has been deemed age-inappropriate carries a stigma; refusing to do so doesn't.  Soccer doesn't enter into it and spanking is an entirely different can of worms.

Isn't it interesting how in a thread where people criticize a guy for using a bunch of ridiculous analogies, those same critics readily employ ridiculous analogies of their own?

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

"I'll acknowledge a 16- or 17-year-old could easily be walking around with $60 in his pocket.  But I doubt changing the "Think of the children!" rallying cry to "Think of the 16-year-olds!" would gain a lot of traction."

It wouldn't gain traction because it's silly, yet the age limit is still 18.

What, then, is the cutoff where "think of the X-year-olds" begins to make sense? 15? 14? Such kids are still old enough to take the bus, and even to have disposable income. While I happen to think the law is ridiculous, I don't think it's correct to suggest that the law makes no difference to most minors. For many of them and especially for those who are old enough to want to play violent video games, it does make a difference.

"Every major retailer restricts sales of M-rated games to minors, and the 'chilling effect' argument doesn't really apply to mom-and-pop stores."

What percentage of total sales would it take to make a 'chilling effect' likely?

"You're being obtuse.  Letting your children consume media that has been deemed age-inappropriate carries a stigma; refusing to do so doesn't.  Soccer doesn't enter into it and spanking is an entirely different can of worms."

Without any numbers to suggest what percentage of parents belong in the group you call "other parents", it is rather disingenuous of you to suggest, as you did, that "other parents" are the norm and the rest are just an exception. As for stigma, it seems to me there's an important difference between allowing your kids to play the games they like and you buying such games on their behalf: While the former is merely permissive, the latter constitutes explicit approval.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

"What, then, is the cutoff where "think of the X-year-olds" begins to make sense? 15? 14? Such kids are still old enough to take the bus, and even to have disposable income."

Around here, you need to be 16 to get regular employment.

But any such cutoff is arbitrary by nature.  As I said, every person is different.  I highlight 16 and 17 for two reasons: one, as I said, is that anyone around here who's walking around with $60 in his pocket with no parental supervision is 16 or older, and the other is that 16 is only a year off from 17, the recommended age for R-rated movies and M-rated games, which in turn is a year off from 18, the age of adulthood and the cutoff in the California law.

"While I happen to think the law is ridiculous, I don't think it's correct to suggest that the law makes no difference to most minors. For many of them and especially for those who are old enough to want to play violent video games, it does make a difference."

For 17-year-olds, I'll grant.  For 16 and under, no, you're simply wrong to say it affects "most" of them.  You may remember a story from last month here on GP that said the FTC has found that, in roughly 80% of cases, retailers refuse to sell M-rated games to children under 17.

"What percentage of total sales would it take to make a 'chilling effect' likely?"

Let's say one major national retailer -- Wal-Mart, Best Buy, GameStop, Target, Amazon -- stops carrying games that get California's adults-only sticker.  Short of that, the games will still be readily, even easily, available.

"Without any numbers to suggest what percentage of parents belong in the group you call "other parents""

That phrasing is actually Neeneko's, but let's keep going.

"it is rather disingenuous of you to suggest, as you did, that "other parents" are the norm and the rest are just an exception."

Fair enough, and looking at some (admittedly old) numbers, a majority of kids are indeed playing M-rated games.  That doesn't necessarily mean a majority of parents are ALLOWING their kids to play M-rated games (I remember high school; sometimes there was a kid with permissive parents and all the kids went to his house to watch movies and play games they weren't allowed to at their house), but even assuming it's a minority it's liable to be a rather big one.

I don't think that necessarily eliminates the stigma -- protective parents can be quite the judgemental type -- but you're right, it's fairly mainstream behavior.

That said, moving on to your next point:

"As for stigma, it seems to me there's an important difference between allowing your kids to play the games they like and you buying such games on their behalf: While the former is merely permissive, the latter constitutes explicit approval."

But again: Retailers refuse to sell M-rated games to customers under the age of 17 80% of the time.  That means that in the vast majority of cases, if a child has access to an M-rated game, he got that access through some means besides buying it himself.  And if he owns it, if it's in his personal library and not something he plays over at a friend's house, odds are pretty good a parent bought it for him.

Adults ALREADY have to actively go up to the counter and grant permission for kids to play M-rated games.  And while I'm sure some of those are older friends or siblings, in the majority of cases they're sure to be parents.

Legally codifying it may add some stigma to going up to the counter and making the purchase, but so does every sensationalistic story about Postal or GTA.  I don't think it's going to cause a major shift in parental behavior -- and if it does, that's their prerogative.  Ultimately, it IS the parents' responsibility to decide what their kids can and can't play.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

That's human nature.  Expect consistency in human behavior or consistency between human attitudes and behavior and be disappointed every time. 

Nonetheless I agree with the larger picture here.  As a community, gamers need to consider how to frame their message to rise above the fear mongering of folks like Yee, not with childish are irrational comments, but with well thought out logic.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

That the idiocy of his statements is so self evident to anyone who can bother putting 5 minutes of their time into actually reading up on the issue, yet this man is still an important elected official, is incredibly disgusting and disheartening.

Yee, stop with the fear mongering and hyperbole.  You insult us, and disgrace your position as a Senator.  And what makes your actions even worse is that you are forcing money from the state into this misguided battle at a time when your state is in desperate need of every cent it can get.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

 Yee said he was “hopeful” that the Court would give “parents a valuable tool to protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games.”

They already have one, it's called being a parent, and saying no.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

I wouldn't worry about this for the same reason you wouldn't worry about a homeless guy claiming demons will rain from the sky tonight.  What pisses me off so much about Leland Yee is that he expects other people to universally agree with him.  Twice now he's been "shocked" at court rulings rejecting his law and he's expressed genuine confusion and bewilderment at the opposition to this law.  Gee, maybe people have opinions that conflict with yours, State Senator?

He's remarkably naive for a politician.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

And if you believe a politician is actually shocked every time he says he is, YOU'RE remarkably naive.

It's called rhetoric.  Politicians use it sometimes.  And I've got some bad news about pro wrestling for you.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

It's not an issue of whether or not he's using rhetoric, which he is.  It's the fact that he obviously can't stomach the idea of people disagreeing with him.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

Although I think that Yee is an idiot... (only in relation to this topic).

I can see how people like him holds these views.

They don't play games.  They are ignorant to what games are.  All they have to go on are their own observations and then they go out to seek others (including "scientists") that hold the same beliefs.  All these people also happen to not play games.  They are also old.

It is a known fact that as people get older, they see the younger generation coming up behind them as scary or delinquent in some fashion and how everything was better before the introduction of <whatever>. Even I'm beginning to fall victim to it (I bitch about how much auto tune is used in music today all the time).

So even though youth crime has GONE DOWN... the perception will always be "those darn youngin' and their <rock n rock>, <dungeons and dragons>, <vidja games>, <etc>".

They're scared and they're old and they're ignorant... I'm hoping that the justices on SCOTUS is only one of those things.

PS.  AUTO TUNE SUCKS BALLS!

PPS With the exception of joke remixes.

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

"It is a known fact that as people get older, they see the younger generation coming up behind them as scary or delinquent in some fashion and how everything was better before the introduction of <whatever>."

It's not a known fact, it's a vague generalization.

It's true of a lot of older people, but there are quite a lot who continue to roll with change and innovation, too.

Yee turns 62 next month.  I know plenty of gamers who aren't that much younger than him, and plenty of people who are older than him who still recognize games as free speech.

I think we're going to find at least 5 of them on the Supreme Court.  You might even say I'm hopeful.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

Actually, as someone familiar with the sociological literature the "youth today with their music and their hair" effect is pretty well established historically.  That said, your point about individual differences is well taken.  Not all older adults fall into this trap.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

Fair enough, and indeed the old guard's historic resistance to change is central to this debate.  Wired had a lovely story some time back where they dug up quotes from 16th-century France decrying the waltz; the "games are fundamentally different from every other time we've had this debate because they're interactive" argument echoes the "movies are fundamentally different from every other time we've had this debate because they move" argument, which echoes the "Sunday comics are fundamentally different from every other time we've had this debate because they're in color" argument.  Obviously I am not inclined to see any fundamental differences in these various arguments.

But I don't see it all as gloom and doom, and yeah, I chafe a little at seeing all older people painted with a broad brush.  I may not understand why the hell anyone would want to type a message with their thumbs instead of just calling someone on the damn phone, but whatever semiliterate gibberish they plug into those devices should absolutely be protected by the Bill of Rights.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

I always liked the one where in the 19th century people argued women shouldn't be allowed to read dime novels because women couldn't distinguish reality from fantasy.  That same argument is now repeated with children including teens (despite that research indicates children master that basic task by about age 3).

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

Anecdotally, my little brother's been a big fan of violent media from a young age but is the most sensitive person I know when it comes to real-life violence.  I've seen him walk out of the room when the evening news was on because he couldn't stand listening to it anymore.

Not that every child's like that, of course, but -- well, that's the point; every child is different, and so is every parent.  Blanket age-based regulations are problematic at best.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

I'm 25 now ,and have been playing the violent bloody games since they were first appearing on the Genesis and SNES, and I can 't stand ot handle ground beef without getting queezy and can hardly stand the sight of blood.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

Admittedly, Yee is and SCOTUS may be just detached enough from modern society to agree on the California law in question. The question they face is whether video games fall into an exception category that is similar to, according to Yee:

"pornography, gambling, marriage, firearms, jury duty, tobacco, alcohol, voting, abortion, licenses, and the death penalty"

Interesting choices of words have been highlighted. This is a tangent, but seriously, he grouped marriage, jury duty, and voting in the same list as pornography, abortion and the death penalty? Seems he has a pretty grim view of the very system that employs him, as well as the institution of marriage from which most of the delightful children he wishes to save are born.

Further, I'm pretty sure everything he just mentioned, with the exception of porn, does not have a relevant connection to the First Amendment, which is at the heart of our objection to this law. Does he think before he starts throwing buzz words into his statements?

And does he think the use of unrelated "bad" things is going to sway the outcome of this case? As pointed out by David Jaffe, SCOTUS is not a popularity contest: the Justices will be deliberating on this issue very carefully. If I can tell that jury duty is not subject to the First Amendment - though it is subject to the Sixth - I think Sotomayor and everyone else can, too.

That being said, the only questions left are:

1. Are violent video games as bad as porn?
2. Are violent video games any different from violent movies and graphic novels?

If SCOTUS says yes to either of these, we lose. I seriously doubt they will.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

Here's another thing that gets me.  Nov. 2 is Election Day.  And on the same day that SCOTUS will hear this case, the state of CA will vote on Proposition 19, which will make marijuana completely legal!  (And will also pass in all likelihood)  The irony regarding this is palpable.  In essence, California is saying a controlled substance which has been demonized for years (and unjustly I might add) will now be considered perfectly okay to be enjoyed by responsible adults.  Meanwhile they want to criminalize the sale of violent video games, which they believe strongly to be a health hazard to the population in general and to minors in particular, even though there have been no conclusive or tangible results to prove this (unlike marijuana, which very distinct and obvious effects on those who have smoked it).

Seriously, what is wrong with this picture?  It only goes to show just how screwed-up California is with their priorities, and I hope this gets mentioned in the hearings.  Only in California, man.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

Yep CA is surpassing Florida as The most wierdest State in the union(And the state of CA is godzilla compared to florida)

I think Prop 19 May be brought up at some point in Swartznegger v EMA/ESA

Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

America has just became its own version of the Jerry Springer Show after a bizarre moment in Florida involving a carnival worker.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

First off, The following gambling, marriage, jury duty, voting, abortion, licenses, and the death penalty are conduct(Not speech)

firearms are protected by the 2nd amendant

Use of Cigerattes and Beer(as well as Marajuna, Which california is trying to legalize) are Hazardous to health(proven by studys unlike the videogame violence connection to real violence) and therefore regulated

And Finally Print media, TV, Movies, Music and Videogames Are Speech(even porn can be considered free speech) and cannot be regulated(With the exception of porn to minors)

Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

America has just became its own version of the Jerry Springer Show after a bizarre moment in Florida involving a carnival worker.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

That 'porn to minors' thing is going to be the truely dangerous argument since it follows the same basic logic.  Fewer first ammendment protections based on age for media that has no proven negative effect, which while it results in a chilling effect for adults is still considered 'ok' because it 'protects children'.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

I agree, and in relation to my other reply comment above, the Yee argument is going to hinge on the perspective that youth have fewer 1st ammendment protections than do adults.  I hope SCOTUS won't be tempted to go down that path, but I can't deny the argument is completely vacant either.  It will depend on whether SCOTUS listens to the social scientists who wrote in their amicus that evidence for the "harm" of video games is absent.  But SCOTUS has no obligation to listen to the amicus briefs.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

This is old. Just a rehash of statements he's made on numerous occasions.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

They are old.  But they do highlight the one strength in the California case from a legal perspective.  Youth have been treated differently by SCOTUS than adults in the past.  If Yee wins, it will probably be on the strength of this argument.  Not that I agree with it or him, but it is the potential Achilles Heel for "our side".  I hope counsel for ESA has a good counter point. 

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

The best counter point is, that it won't just be youth who would be affected. If they can prove the chilling effect and that availability to adults would be affected, it will be stricken down. A perfect example of this is the Children's Online Protection Act, which was stricken down in ACLU v. Ashcroft. Nobody could argue that children had a right to view the porngraphic material at issue in that law. Instead, they held that because adults did have the right to view it, the least restrictive means needed to be used, and COPA did not use the least restrictive means.

Also, cases that say children do not have the same First Amendment rights as adults have still been defined in terms of unprotected speech (i.e. obscenity). Extending the definition of obscenity to include violence would be something many people, including numerous judges, bristle at: a blatant example of judicial activism.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

You are correct on both points and I hope these arguments will hold sway.  The one potential glitch is the "bong hits for Jesus" case, forget the case name.  That one gave teen 1st ammendment rights a hit, without touching on obscenity.  Then again in that case it was the teen speaking and with no particular serious intent.  We'll see.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

That was also a narrow decision, in the context of public schools. Kennedy and Alito both hinted that had it not been for the school setting, they would have gone the other way.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

"Parents should be able to decide whether or not their children can play in a world of murder and violence that often degrades women and racial minorities. The video game industry has never put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children."

Fixed.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

"Never"? Really?  Not even a little bit?

I think that's a foolish argument to make.  The way I see it, the game publishers DO prize profits above all else -- but at this point, they've learned from experience that marketing adult games to children hurts those profits.

The ratings system and increased pressure not to sell M-rated games to kids aren't some sort of civic-minded altruism.  The game industry is seeking to cover its ass and minimize negative PR.

The good news is, the result is the same.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

I think we have found our new JT

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

Parents – not retailers or game makers – should be able to decide whether or not their children can play in a world of murder and violence that often degrades women and racial minorities. The video game industry should not be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.

This is completely retarded logic, and I wish more people could realize that this is bullshit and does nothing for the well being of children. If he wish, he also could ban violent movies due the risk of kids couls watch them, or even ban ice cream due the risk of children getting fat.

The entire logic on Yee is based on myths, generalizations and taboos founded that the industry is solely aiming for little children, which is not.

How a person can be as corrupted and retarded as Yee is something that I can´t even imagine.

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

"Pee-pee" and "retarded".  Nice.  Way to class up the joint, dudes.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

Troll harder, Thad.

------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

Sooo suggesting that you choose a level of discourse above the average 9-year-old is considered trolling, now?  Is that what GP's come to?

If I were trolling, I'd put less effort into my posts.  Maybe just call everyone who disagrees with me "retarded".

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

If I were trolling, I'd put less effort into my posts.  Maybe just call everyone who disagrees with me "retarded".

For someone who is complaining on every three post about calling Yee retarded, you sure put a lot of effort.

Besides, you just dismissed all the other things I have said, but you still focused on a single word and saying I´m acting like a 9 years old. Do that really takes an effort from you?

The only thing you do is complain and complain about what are everyone posting but you don´t aoport nothing either.

------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

"For someone who is complaining on every three post about calling Yee retarded, you sure put a lot of effort."

That's what I just said.

"Besides, you just dismissed all the other things I have said, but you still focused on a single word and saying I´m acting like a 9 years old. Do that really takes an effort from you?"

All right, let's try this.

The SCOTUS case isn't going to be decided here on GP.  But there's a larger debate here, about the place of games in culture and about their legitimacy as a medium.  That's a debate that's going to continue long after EMA is decided.  And GP is an important site in framing that debate.

How can we win the debate?  By proving that we're more mature, more rational, more reasonable, and closer to the mainstream than guys like Yee.  Not through childish name-calling.

"The only thing you do is complain and complain about what are everyone posting but you don´t aoport nothing either."

I'm not sure what "aoport" means but I've written some of the longest and most detailed posts in this thread.  I've discussed the profit motive for the game industry to enforce its ratings, I've discussed the details of the law and why it doesn't prevent parents from buying games for their children and taken apart the strawman of unaccompanied minors buying M-rated games, I've expressed my reasons for thinking the "chilling effect" is exaggerated, I've gone into the reasons games aren't like alcohol, and yeah, I've stressed the importance of getting our point across as mature adults instead of petulant children.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what have YOU contributed to the discussion?  A slippery-slope argument and accusations that everyone who disagrees with you is retarded and everyone who chastises you for being childish is a troll.

I'll say it again: way to class up the joint.

I'm sure you've got something useful and productive to add to the discussion.  Please do; I'm sure you and I both have better things to do than continue this little side conversation.

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

The SCOTUS case isn't going to be decided here on GP.  But there's a larger debate here, about the place of games in culture and about their legitimacy as a medium.  That's a debate that's going to continue long after EMA is decided.  And GP is an important site in framing that debate.

I already know that a court case isn´t gonna resolve here. The sad part is that there isn´t really a debate. This whole thing of "protecting children from evil videogames" is just a one side show. Yes organizations like EMA and the ECA are there to "represent us", but consumers or gamers in general are largely excluded of the debate.

GP is not that important. GP is an information outlet for gamers, not necessarely for a more general public. We are not that important and we can´t actually play a major role other than "OMG they want to ban my gamez". I wish we could, but that isn´t the case.

How can we win the debate?  By proving that we're more mature, more rational, more reasonable, and closer to the mainstream than guys like Yee.  Not through childish name-calling.

That´s being naive. The pasive method don´t always works, and somehow I wish we could be more vocal than sending broken controls to Yee. The name calling it´s just a way to vent our frustation. Not that they call us sociopaths is not name calling either.

I'm not sure what "aoport"

Pulling out a "grammar nazi" on a typo. And you just said you ain´t a troll.

I've discussed the profit motive for the game industry to enforce its ratings, I've discussed the details of the law and why it doesn't prevent parents from buying games for their children and taken apart the strawman of unaccompanied minors buying M-rated games, I've expressed my reasons for thinking the "chilling effect" is exaggerated, I've gone into the reasons games aren't like alcohol, and yeah, I've stressed the importance of getting our point across as mature adults instead of petulant children.

You are right there, I admit it.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what have YOU contributed to the discussion?  A slippery-slope argument and accusations that everyone who disagrees with you is retarded and everyone who chastises you for being childish is a troll.

I´m very sorry that the comment doesn´t past your demanding filter, Thad, but I guess I have to live with it, as the rest of the world.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

Re: Yee “Hopeful” for SCOTUS Win

"The pasive method don´t always works"

Nobody said anything about being passive.

Not calling people "retarded" is not the same thing as being passive.

"The name calling it´s just a way to vent our frustation. Not that they call us sociopaths is not name calling either."

Of course it is (though I've never seen Yee use that term).  But we can do better.

"Pulling out a "grammar nazi" on a typo. And you just said you ain´t a troll."

Rodrigo, I genuinely have no idea what word you meant to use there.  The only word I can think of that "aoport" resembles is "support", which makes no sense in the context of the sentence.

"I´m very sorry that the comment doesn´t past your demanding filter, Thad, but I guess I have to live with it, as the rest of the world."

Or you could just act like a friggin' adult, dude.

You're already talking in a more reasonable and mature manner, and kudos for that.  That was all I asked.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Whose next half decade of superhero films are you most looking forward to?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
ZippyDSMleeConster:Some PSP games are 10-20$, you can buy a few then rip them yourself or find an ISO. The emu is PPSSPP.I'm I the only one that hates crisis core?10/31/2014 - 11:28am
ConsterZippy: uh, thanks? Don't know any PSP games, though.10/31/2014 - 10:10am
ZippyDSMleehttp://arstechnica.com/business/2014/10/fcc-reportedly-close-to-reclassifying-isps-as-common-carriers/10/31/2014 - 9:44am
ZippyDSMleesomewhat ammuseing, http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/metallica_ask_fans_for_help_with_two_new_reissues.html10/31/2014 - 9:25am
Neo_DrKefkaAnyone remember that portrait from Resident Evil 1 in the gallery about a Middle Aged man full of worries? Anyone know the name of that portrait?10/31/2014 - 12:45am
MechaTama31Yeah, don't see myself getting a Vita or a PSTV...10/31/2014 - 12:04am
E. Zachary KnightWatch Ultron ruin all your Disney childhood memories in this How The Ultron Teaser Should Have Ended. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra1sBRLRFtc10/30/2014 - 9:23pm
ZippyDSMleeConster:they finally made a working worth while PSP emulator.10/30/2014 - 8:10pm
quiknkoldMechatama31, you can get VC2 on the Vita and Vita TV. you have to buy it through PSN on PS3 and transfer it to vita and then playstation tv. I have it on my PS TV and it works10/30/2014 - 7:15pm
MechaTama31I loved Valkyria Chronicles. Still super cheesed off that the sequels were PSP-only... :/10/30/2014 - 6:57pm
ConsterI played Steamworld Dig on the 3DS, and it's pretty fun.10/30/2014 - 6:51pm
Matthew WilsonRECOMMENDED: OS: Windows 7 Processor: Intel Core2 Duo @ 2.8GHz (or equivalent) Memory: 3 GB RAM Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 (or equivalent) Hard Drive: 25 GB available space10/30/2014 - 5:49pm
Matthew Wilsonhere hare the system requirements. make of ithem what you will. MINIMUM: OS: Windows Vista/Windows 7 Processor: Intel Core2 Duo @ 2.0GHz (or equivalent) Memory: 2 GB RAM Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTS 240 (or equivalent) Hard Drive: 25 GB available spa10/30/2014 - 5:48pm
Andrew EisenStill a game I really want to play. Hope it's a solid port.10/30/2014 - 5:42pm
Matthew WilsonValkyria Chronicles pc port needs 25ggb. not bad exept this game came out in 08 on the ps3.10/30/2014 - 4:56pm
james_fudgeEZK: my sarcasm senses are tingling ;)10/30/2014 - 4:21pm
Andrew EisenIf it's any consolation, Xbox owners, Wii U owners don't get the game at all. And if we did, we'd probably never get the DLC.10/30/2014 - 4:19pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://kotaku.com/destinys-new-dlc-kinda-screws-over-xbox-players-1652294153 Sucks when the shoe's on the other foot, huh.10/30/2014 - 4:12pm
E. Zachary KnightSo a vocational school in Oklahoma is being evacuated because someone found a briefcase in the bathroom. Imagine that. A briefcase ina school. That's unpossible.10/30/2014 - 3:33pm
prh99Also, Nintendo wants to watch you sleep..for Science! (*in best Cave Johnson voice) http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/10/nintendo-wants-to-watch-you-sleep-for-science/10/30/2014 - 2:47pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician