The fact that this legislator seriously proposed this, much less entertained the idea, proves we've got some seriously incompetent people running the government.
How can I possibly think Rep. Evans has sound reasoning and is a compentent policymaker for everything else Chicago has to deal with?
We are living in the age of moral indignation and outrage rather than intelligence and understanding. On the one hand, it does nothing to address the problem. On the other hand, that's good because it means there is more fuel for outrage in the next election, too.
"moral indignation" is timeless. But it does feel uniquely current to have two political parties that seem to use it as their primary currency (in the US at least).
I have trouble recalling any major legislation after the Affordable Care Act that wasn't fully grounded in moral indignation or virtue signalling.
Well, the age of enlightenment was well over a century and people seem to like moral indignation and outrage more, so I'd guess we're gonna stick with it for a while.
The 90s were the peak of legislators trying to shift blame onto violent videogames and other media. Do you remember the uproar following the release of Mortal Kombat? Or the mini-satanic panic over magic cards?
Not to mention the big Satanic Panic over backmasking in music and Dungeons and Dragons and women working outside the house and leaving their kids in Satanic preschools and, before that, the panic over Rock'n'Roll music and, before that, the panic over Jazz and, before that, the panic over the Foxtrot...
Come to think of it, there seems to be a panic every time the culture changes.
It was. The late 90s and early 2000s were chock full of moral panic about video games in general and Grand Theft Auto specifically, with speeches about "murder simulators" training our youths to kill being quite common.
> The fact that this legislator seriously proposed this, much less entertained the idea, proves we've got some seriously incompetent people running the government.
Hillary Clinton also tried to make GTA illegal, which is a large part of why Trump became president.
And a fairly simple read of the link will indicate that what's being discussed is the enforcement of the ESRB ratings so kids get age-appropriate material. Not the banning of video games.
The ESRB isn't a governmental body, its more like an ISO/ASME. What's being discussed is to write laws that would be enforced by a governmental-body, not by an industry-body, with fines/penalties/criminal-indictments collected/issued/enforced by that government.
Once legislators are involved, the ban on games sales would happen at a country-legal level, albeit only for children. Did I get that wrong? Does anyone here know more about the ESRB that I'm missing?
A fair question generally. But also one that's not very relevant to this thread. There are already age restrictions on many activities anyway and proponents on both sides.
The point was that the parent poster was talking about a full ban on games and posted an example which did not support the assertion.
> The point was that the parent poster was talking about a full ban on games and posted an example which did not support the assertion.
It was basically a full ban on video games for anyone under 18. IIRC even games like Super Mario Bros. and PAC-MAN could have been banned for violence under the proposed standard.
I don't know about anyone else, but I read the sentence as a causal opinion, mentally adding an "I think" into his phrase. I wasn't sure if his "fact" had any truth, but "effect" is debatable in almost all cases. And that's a useful mnemonic to have, because it allows you to avoid the common trap of needing to "prove" someone wrong on the internet.
A*****17: Hillary Clinton also tried to make GTA illegal, which _I think_ is a large part of why Trump became president.
He’s right that Hillary tried to ban violent video games but it was long before her election and there’s no evidence to suggest it had any bearing whatsoever on the election.
There was other stuff she did in the past that had no relevance to the election that I think turned off a lot of voters in 2016, whether that specific issue was something important to people, I'm guessing at least a few.
My specific indifference to her was her connection to Monsanto, the company.
Why do you think 4chan users were spending all their free time making pro-Trump and anti-Clinton memes? The GTA ban was one of the main things Clinton did to make that demographic hate her.
I wonder how targeted that was - I remember a ton of crap surfacing from that particular cesspool m but never saw this one. It seemed a lot more like Gamergate just kept going and added the more mainstream conspiracy theories.
I’d also be very careful about taking anything they say at face value. The slogans change but the targets remain consistent.
I don't think it played any part in her loss to Trump, but Clinton did push for video game legislation while a Senator, in response to the GTA "Hot Coffee" controversy.
The United States Family Entertainment Protection Act (FEPA) was a bill introduced by Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and co-sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) on November 29, 2005. The bill called for a federal mandate enforcement of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) ratings system for video games in order to protect children from inappropriate content.
The FEPA would have imposed fines of US$1000 or 100 hours of community service for a first time offense of selling a "Mature" or "Adult-Only" rated video game to a minor, and $5000 or 500 hours for each subsequent offense. The bill also called for a FTC investigation into the ESRB to ascertain whether they have been properly rating games.
How can I possibly think Rep. Evans has sound reasoning and is a compentent policymaker for everything else Chicago has to deal with?