Rockstar Under Fire as Clinton Points Finger
> News Comments > SPOnG Comments Index
Topic started: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:48
Click here to view the news article this topic refers to.
Click here to view the news article this topic refers to.
Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:36
Funny how this is always portrayed by the media (spong included) as right wing or Republican censorship, while the only politicians that I hear ranting about banning games are Democrats. (Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman.)
Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:43
F*** hillary that slut don't know a damn thing about politics let alone video games. Well then I guess charles manson played a video game and that's why he wanted to kill people or what about ted bundy he played gta before gta came out and wanted to kill women. These polititians should shut up the f*** up and worry about getting those troops out of iraq.
Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:48
I agree F*** Hillary!!! Bill is cool though.
Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:49
Yo dog are you living in a cave, your no gamer. Each GTA is different.
Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:22
I just wanted to clarify things. Too much hysteria abounds. Obviously, Sen. Clinton would like to appear more aggressive into appealing to the "family values" set. Her remarks are nothing new.
What kills me is how discussions on this topic of the influence of content in media, whether its video games, movies or music, overshadows a lot of very REAL problems kids face today: Poor education, lack of healthcare, etc. This wrangling over the issue of violence in games can be meaningful, but most of the arguments are excessive if we take a look at overall national trends.
According to the federal government's own crime statistics, violent crimes have actually fallen over the last couple of decades. 2003 found that violent crimes (murder, rape, etc.) were actually at their lowest level ever in the era of recording such stats.
As for the argument about whether or not adults are those who make up the video game consumer market, the Economist reported back in 2002 that nearly 60% of Americans play video games and 61% of that figure are adults, the average age being 28. This trend can only continue with more and more children who were raised in the video game era grow older.
It is a problem when minors purchase and play games that are supposed to be rated as mature, but frankly, the proportions of this "crisis" have been overblown. The kids in Columbine, Red Lake, etc. had significant problems, and to pin such acts of wantonness on the simple answer, such as blaming the media, diminishes those tragedies. In a nation where one presidential candidate gloats about killing terrorists and another states that he would be great at killing terrorists, who, in the end, really influences the nature of our children?
What kills me is how discussions on this topic of the influence of content in media, whether its video games, movies or music, overshadows a lot of very REAL problems kids face today: Poor education, lack of healthcare, etc. This wrangling over the issue of violence in games can be meaningful, but most of the arguments are excessive if we take a look at overall national trends.
According to the federal government's own crime statistics, violent crimes have actually fallen over the last couple of decades. 2003 found that violent crimes (murder, rape, etc.) were actually at their lowest level ever in the era of recording such stats.
As for the argument about whether or not adults are those who make up the video game consumer market, the Economist reported back in 2002 that nearly 60% of Americans play video games and 61% of that figure are adults, the average age being 28. This trend can only continue with more and more children who were raised in the video game era grow older.
It is a problem when minors purchase and play games that are supposed to be rated as mature, but frankly, the proportions of this "crisis" have been overblown. The kids in Columbine, Red Lake, etc. had significant problems, and to pin such acts of wantonness on the simple answer, such as blaming the media, diminishes those tragedies. In a nation where one presidential candidate gloats about killing terrorists and another states that he would be great at killing terrorists, who, in the end, really influences the nature of our children?
Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:47
scribe999 wrote:
I just wanted to clarify things. Too much hysteria abounds. Obviously, Sen. Clinton would like to appear more aggressive into appealing to the "family values" set. Her remarks are nothing new.
What kills me is how discussions on this topic of the influence of content in media, whether its video games, movies or music, overshadows a lot of very REAL problems kids face today: Poor education, lack of healthcare, etc. This wrangling over the issue of violence in games can be meaningful, but most of the arguments are excessive if we take a look at overall national trends.
According to the federal government's own crime statistics, violent crimes have actually fallen over the last couple of decades. 2003 found that violent crimes (murder, rape, etc.) were actually at their lowest level ever in the era of recording such stats.
As for the argument about whether or not adults are those who make up the video game consumer market, the Economist reported back in 2002 that nearly 60% of Americans play video games and 61% of that figure are adults, the average age being 28. This trend can only continue with more and more children who were raised in the video game era grow older.
It is a problem when minors purchase and play games that are supposed to be rated as mature, but frankly, the proportions of this "crisis" have been overblown. The kids in Columbine, Red Lake, etc. had significant problems, and to pin such acts of wantonness on the simple answer, such as blaming the media, diminishes those tragedies. In a nation where one presidential candidate gloats about killing terrorists and another states that he would be great at killing terrorists, who, in the end, really influences the nature of our children?[/quote
What a superb response. Thanks.
What kills me is how discussions on this topic of the influence of content in media, whether its video games, movies or music, overshadows a lot of very REAL problems kids face today: Poor education, lack of healthcare, etc. This wrangling over the issue of violence in games can be meaningful, but most of the arguments are excessive if we take a look at overall national trends.
According to the federal government's own crime statistics, violent crimes have actually fallen over the last couple of decades. 2003 found that violent crimes (murder, rape, etc.) were actually at their lowest level ever in the era of recording such stats.
As for the argument about whether or not adults are those who make up the video game consumer market, the Economist reported back in 2002 that nearly 60% of Americans play video games and 61% of that figure are adults, the average age being 28. This trend can only continue with more and more children who were raised in the video game era grow older.
It is a problem when minors purchase and play games that are supposed to be rated as mature, but frankly, the proportions of this "crisis" have been overblown. The kids in Columbine, Red Lake, etc. had significant problems, and to pin such acts of wantonness on the simple answer, such as blaming the media, diminishes those tragedies. In a nation where one presidential candidate gloats about killing terrorists and another states that he would be great at killing terrorists, who, in the end, really influences the nature of our children?[/quote
What a superb response. Thanks.
Fri, 1 Apr 2005 16:37
scribe999 wrote:
Economist reported back in 2002 that nearly 60% of Americans play video games and 61% of that figure are adults, the average age being 28.
These statistics should be approached with caution. They were created to try and increase the appeal of the video games market to advertisers.
"99% of our users are 14, and have £15 a week disposable income, 100% of which they spend on computer games. They have no houses, no cars, and no full-time employment" doesn't make for a particularly attractive demographic. So they look for figures that sound appealing.
Sure 60% of American play video games.
But 70% of that 60% are at very best occasional and casual gamers.
Look at the figures, all three platforms together have not sold 160,000,000 units in the US, indicating that most of this "60%" do not actually own a console.
The "real gamers" are still a predominantly younger audience.
Despite your well reasoned and plausible response, media violence, including that in video games is highly likely to be a contributing factor in their dissolution. No-one could suggest that it is the sole cause, but to seek to refute that it is contributory is disingenuous at best.
And while the protagonists of Columbine may have had other problems, they may not have sought catharsis through such destructive means had they not been inured to violence by video games and movies.
Fri, 1 Apr 2005 16:48
This is why spong is the only place i actually participate in forums... of all the video game web pages in all the world, spong has the most worth while group of people to converse with. I have alot of friends who like video games but very few of them come close to putting the level of thought in to these things as the guys around here do.
so basically, thanks for not sucking
_________
so basically, thanks for not sucking
_________
Fri, 1 Apr 2005 19:05
An excellent rebuttal. I would like to state that I wasn't attempting to be disingenuous. I do agree that an overexposure to violent media is not ideal for children, or anyone for that matter. What I am suggesting is that the mediums that convey crass, controversial or objectionable content matter tend to be more symptomatic of society's ills rather than causal.
It's a "chicken and the egg" argument. Did a young man's disturbed behavior abet him to seek out the games and web sites that fed his darker side, or was he so heavily influenced by the media around him that his aggression was allowed to flourish?
I mostly believe in the former. Here in the States, fear is the order of the day. The attack on controversial media is something that consistently rears its head, decade after decade. Our children and the music, movies and games they watch and play continue to plague the imagination of the American psyche. The key piece of my argument was the fact that violent crime rates are down across the U.S., yet politicians, journalists and "talking heads" continue to impress upon us that crime and violence lurks around every corner.
I do agree that statistics have to be approached carefully, but to highlight that point, you pointed out that there were less than 160,000,000 units of the three major consoles sold in the U.S. Yet, this number discounts older generations of consoles (still being utilized by a small portion of the 'hardcore' gamer market) and of course, PC's, a market that tends to skew older.
And though I take your word for the demographics represented on this site, when I worked as an editor at Happypuppy.com, the average age of our readers was over 18, and IGN/Gamespy currently states that approximately 66% of their readers are over the age of 18. Furthermore, disposable income for teens still comes mostly from parents. Who's to blame when a parent allows a minor to keep computers, consoles, t.v.'s etc. in their own rooms to view virtually anything unsupervised?
Just to add a final point, the former U.S. Surgeon General himself stated: "...we clearly associate media violence to aggressive behavior, but the impact was very small compared to other things. Some may not be happy with that, but that’s where the science is."
These statistics should be approached with caution. They were created to try and increase the appeal of the video games market to advertisers.
"99% of our users are 14, and have £15 a week disposable income, 100% of which they spend on computer games. They have no houses, no cars, and no full-time employment" doesn't make for a particularly attractive demographic. So they look for figures that sound appealing.
Sure 60% of American play video games.
But 70% of that 60% are at very best occasional and casual gamers.
Look at the figures, all three platforms together have not sold 160,000,000 units in the US, indicating that most of this "60%" do not actually own a console.
The "real gamers" are still a predominantly younger audience.
Despite your well reasoned and plausible response, media violence, including that in video games is highly likely to be a contributing factor in their dissolution. No-one could suggest that it is the sole cause, but to seek to refute that it is contributory is disingenuous at best.
And while the protagonists of Columbine may have had other problems, they may not have sought catharsis through such destructive means had they not been inured to violence by video games and movies.
It's a "chicken and the egg" argument. Did a young man's disturbed behavior abet him to seek out the games and web sites that fed his darker side, or was he so heavily influenced by the media around him that his aggression was allowed to flourish?
I mostly believe in the former. Here in the States, fear is the order of the day. The attack on controversial media is something that consistently rears its head, decade after decade. Our children and the music, movies and games they watch and play continue to plague the imagination of the American psyche. The key piece of my argument was the fact that violent crime rates are down across the U.S., yet politicians, journalists and "talking heads" continue to impress upon us that crime and violence lurks around every corner.
I do agree that statistics have to be approached carefully, but to highlight that point, you pointed out that there were less than 160,000,000 units of the three major consoles sold in the U.S. Yet, this number discounts older generations of consoles (still being utilized by a small portion of the 'hardcore' gamer market) and of course, PC's, a market that tends to skew older.
And though I take your word for the demographics represented on this site, when I worked as an editor at Happypuppy.com, the average age of our readers was over 18, and IGN/Gamespy currently states that approximately 66% of their readers are over the age of 18. Furthermore, disposable income for teens still comes mostly from parents. Who's to blame when a parent allows a minor to keep computers, consoles, t.v.'s etc. in their own rooms to view virtually anything unsupervised?
Just to add a final point, the former U.S. Surgeon General himself stated: "...we clearly associate media violence to aggressive behavior, but the impact was very small compared to other things. Some may not be happy with that, but that’s where the science is."
DoctorDee wrote:
scribe999 wrote:
Economist reported back in 2002 that nearly 60% of Americans play video games and 61% of that figure are adults, the average age being 28.
These statistics should be approached with caution. They were created to try and increase the appeal of the video games market to advertisers.
"99% of our users are 14, and have £15 a week disposable income, 100% of which they spend on computer games. They have no houses, no cars, and no full-time employment" doesn't make for a particularly attractive demographic. So they look for figures that sound appealing.
Sure 60% of American play video games.
But 70% of that 60% are at very best occasional and casual gamers.
Look at the figures, all three platforms together have not sold 160,000,000 units in the US, indicating that most of this "60%" do not actually own a console.
The "real gamers" are still a predominantly younger audience.
Despite your well reasoned and plausible response, media violence, including that in video games is highly likely to be a contributing factor in their dissolution. No-one could suggest that it is the sole cause, but to seek to refute that it is contributory is disingenuous at best.
And while the protagonists of Columbine may have had other problems, they may not have sought catharsis through such destructive means had they not been inured to violence by video games and movies.
Mon, 4 Apr 2005 05:26
Lies, damned lies and statistics... the numeric equivalent of a semantics...
The most recent FBI Uniform Crime Report - preliminary Jan-June 2004 - like all stats is weighted and heavily caveat-ridden:
So, we ask ourselves is crime falling or is the reporting of crime falling.
If our view of what violence is has changed (diminished) and if our confidence in the efficacy of law enforcement agencies has diminished as well, then these stats take on a new complexion.
The only tangible in this debate is that no one has an original thought. All thought is a result of external stimuli.
Therefore we need to audit that stimuli and make judgement as a society (or set of linked socities) as to whether these stimuli are serving any practical or postive purpose.
There is an argument, for example, based on psychoanalysis that we are better externalising our 'reptile' brain in a controlled situation - playing GTA in a safe environment, watching "Enter The Dragon", reading "American Psycho", listening to Judas Priest CDs backwards, watching Leeds United lose to Wigan Athletic.
And this works in many cases. And mainly if the construction of the environment is more appealing to us to retain than to destroy.
The argument is not about whether GTA encourages school shootings - the liklihood is that violent computer games are part of a much wider picture - but whether or not Hilary Clinton should be asking questions about the effects of external stimuli on human beings.
My issue was with slapdash reporting (sorry, Spong, I do appreciate you really) and idiot-level reaction.
Thomas Jefferson pointed out that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance - and the slave-owning old mysoginist had a point.
If we don't ask ourselves if what we are producing is actually serving us positively, then:
and even more saliently:
Both quotes from the super-violent... Frankenstein
The most recent FBI Uniform Crime Report - preliminary Jan-June 2004 - like all stats is weighted and heavily caveat-ridden:
Collectively, law enforcement agencies throughout the United States reported a decrease of 2.0 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention...
So, we ask ourselves is crime falling or is the reporting of crime falling.
If our view of what violence is has changed (diminished) and if our confidence in the efficacy of law enforcement agencies has diminished as well, then these stats take on a new complexion.
The only tangible in this debate is that no one has an original thought. All thought is a result of external stimuli.
Therefore we need to audit that stimuli and make judgement as a society (or set of linked socities) as to whether these stimuli are serving any practical or postive purpose.
There is an argument, for example, based on psychoanalysis that we are better externalising our 'reptile' brain in a controlled situation - playing GTA in a safe environment, watching "Enter The Dragon", reading "American Psycho", listening to Judas Priest CDs backwards, watching Leeds United lose to Wigan Athletic.
And this works in many cases. And mainly if the construction of the environment is more appealing to us to retain than to destroy.
The argument is not about whether GTA encourages school shootings - the liklihood is that violent computer games are part of a much wider picture - but whether or not Hilary Clinton should be asking questions about the effects of external stimuli on human beings.
My issue was with slapdash reporting (sorry, Spong, I do appreciate you really) and idiot-level reaction.
Thomas Jefferson pointed out that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance - and the slave-owning old mysoginist had a point.
If we don't ask ourselves if what we are producing is actually serving us positively, then:
"...I ardently hope that the gratification of your wishes may not be a serpent to sting you,as mine has been."
and even more saliently:
". . . the companions of our childhood always possess a certain power over our minds which hardly any later friend can obtain."
Both quotes from the super-violent... Frankenstein
Mon, 4 Apr 2005 07:36
Hillary may have a point! with all the shootings going on these games do influence young minds (some rather) the wrong way .a life is worth more than some silly video game that hasnt evolved since the third entry also dont you see u r proving her point by disrespecting her!! she's an adult and u r disrespecting her i wonder where o where did you guys learn to disrespect elders?Probaly GRAND THEFT AUTO JUST BAAAAD PARENTING?
IM A GAMER ,IM 23, BUT EVEN I RESPECT MY ELDERS AND AUTHORITY!!!
IM A GAMER ,IM 23, BUT EVEN I RESPECT MY ELDERS AND AUTHORITY!!!
Mon, 4 Apr 2005 07:36
Hillary may have a point! with all the shootings going on these games do influence young minds (some rather) the wrong way .a life is worth more than some silly video game that hasnt evolved since the third entry also dont you see u r proving her point by disrespecting her!! she's an adult and u r disrespecting her i wonder where o where did you guys learn to disrespect elders?Probaly GRAND THEFT AUTO JUST BAAAAD PARENTING?
IM A GAMER ,IM 23, BUT EVEN I RESPECT MY ELDERS AND AUTHORITY!!!
IM A GAMER ,IM 23, BUT EVEN I RESPECT MY ELDERS AND AUTHORITY!!!
Mon, 4 Apr 2005 07:36
Hillary may have a point! with all the shootings going on these games do influence young minds (some rather) the wrong way .a life is worth more than some silly video game that hasnt evolved since the third entry also dont you see u r proving her point by disrespecting her!! she's an adult and u r disrespecting her i wonder where o where did you guys learn to disrespect elders?Probaly GRAND THEFT AUTO JUST BAAAAD PARENTING?
IM A GAMER ,IM 23, BUT EVEN I RESPECT MY ELDERS AND AUTHORITY!!!
IM A GAMER ,IM 23, BUT EVEN I RESPECT MY ELDERS AND AUTHORITY!!!
Mon, 4 Apr 2005 07:37
Hillary may have a point! with all the shootings going on these games do influence young minds (some rather) the wrong way .a life is worth more than some silly video game that hasnt evolved since the third entry also dont you see u r proving her point by disrespecting her!! she's an adult and u r disrespecting her i wonder where o where did you guys learn to disrespect elders?Probaly GRAND THEFT AUTO JUST BAAAAD PARENTING?
IM A GAMER ,IM 23, BUT EVEN I RESPECT MY ELDERS AND AUTHORITY!!!
IM A GAMER ,IM 23, BUT EVEN I RESPECT MY ELDERS AND AUTHORITY!!!
Log-in or register to permanently change your layout setting.
875 comments
Not on my patch they won't. I'M THE F**KING DADDY!!!!