It takes a Village Nag.
By the way, just in case you thing this is a personal issue with me, let me tell you that I hate video games and generally think they are a stupid waste of time. But I think everyone has the right to waste their time in the way that they see fit. Furthermore, I believe that all the emphasis on blaming videogames, blaming Hollywood, blaming music, etc. is worse than stupid and wrong, its harmful. Its harmful because it distracts society from dealing with the real problems facing kids and young adults. It is a way for parents to have someone else to point at, rather than taking a look at themselves and their lifestyles. Parents and politicians should switch the question from "What affect is this entertainment having on our children?" to "Why are our children so attracted to violent entertainment?" They are concentrating on the symptoms, not the causes.
UPDATE:
Just as a reminder, the Reichwing morons love whining about what Hollywood is doing to the children. Hide the kids! Its Madonna!!
BLA Update:
Here's something we can all celebrate:
11 comments:
absolutely, this is one of the biggest problems i have with Democrats. they want to control everything you take in, be it cigarettes to pot, music, video games, its crap. but Republicans would kill you for a dollar, gotta choose your battles.
I don't find a significant problem with this. Just like it is important to study the effects of poverty on crime, I think there is just reason to inquire whether video games have an effect on children. I think that blaming video games for kid's actions is wrong, but considering video gameplay as a factor is more than reasonable. Allow me to give an example. A child who plays video games for long hours can become antisocial. Of course, this would be the parent's fault for not dictating the amount of gameplay possible. However, can we assume that all parents know that video games can be harmful? I don't think we can assume that anymore than we can assume that all parents know what is always right for their child. Therefore, I think such an inquiry isn't necessarily a bad idea. Wouldn't we want parents to know whether video games can be harmful? Most importantly, wouldn't we want to educate parents about such effects if they have no knowledge about it?
Democrats don't want to control everything you take in. There is a difference between wanting to control and wanting to protect. In public discourse, this is a good move in the eyes of parents. Unfortunately, for those of us who know that video games are usually harmless, it seems intrusive. Ultimately, the age group who mostly plays video games is the poorest in voter turnout. As a result of this, we can only expect the concerns of families being considered.
Yeah, this is a serious lynchpin for the Democratic party.
Why does it always have to be about blame? Why does somebody always have to be blamed for other people's negligence or stupidity?
Can somebody please step up to the plate and beat it in to our minds that nobody is responsible for your well-being besides yourself?
Bill O'Reilly said it in one of his books: "Who's Looking Out for You?" A: You are. If you try to blame somebody for living paycheck to paycheck, or getting a huge mortgage on a 5-year ARM, and now you can't afford the payment because the rate went up 2%, or your kids are doing poorly in school because you'd rather let them plop in front of the TV all day playing video games instead of tackle football, baseball, taking them to the park, or taking them camping and teaching them about the environment and nature, then you will spend your whole life looking for somebody to blame.
Then one day, if you're lucky, somebody will spill hot coffee on you at McDonald's, and a judge will give you a gigantic check that somebody else earned for you to reward your constant bitching. In the meantime you can keep eating there every day, and use your backup plan: a lawsuit blaming your coronary heart disease on their french fry grease.
I believe in personal responsibility.
I hope the ACLU dismantles this attempt at legislating leisure time.
It's hard to get used to cheering for the ACLU, however. They had better stick up for the 2nd Amendment when they come for that.
Lefty,
I noticed your very reasonable point. To research and learn the effects of something is wise. To legislate a good idea at the cost of freedom is a bad idea, but I know that's not what you're talking about.
I agree Axe, legislating a good idea at the cost of freedom is bad. This is very similar to the torture bill passed by Congress. If we are going to talk about freedom, we must also consider the freedom parents have to know the effects of with what their kids are playing.
I also believe in personal responsibility. To be logically consistent, the video game industry must also accept responsibility if they're marketing a particular product to an age group susceptible to influence. This is similar to the tobacco industry marketing cigarettes to teens by illustrating smoking as a "cool thing". Like I said before, I am against blaming the video game industry, but they aren't immune to having some kind of responsibility.
Why is it that gangs flourish mostly in poor neighborhoods? I grew up in a gang-infested neighborhood. I couldn't help to notice that kids who succumbed to gang activity usually grew up in a home where both parents worked full-time. Both parents had to work in order to cover the costs of raising a family. As a result, their kids were left alone for a large part of the evening. Natually, they would go outside and play with their friends. This lack of supervision ultimately became a factor in the child's socialization.
Who can we hold responsible here? The parents had to work, or they wouldn't have enough money to eat. The children were socialized into being left alone and eventually were lured by gang life. Of course, we can say that the parents should have made better decisions in their young lives to avoid such hardships. But can we actually say this not knowing what their life was like?
The point is that we can generalize all we want about parents always being responsible, but this just isn't so. There are factors that play into all these situations. Therefore, while I'm against the blaming of video games for kid's actions, I do agree that they are a factor. Ultimately, the public good takes precedent to freedom. This idea is best illustrated in our right to free speech and how we can't yell "fire" in a crowded room.
Regarding the gang situation, that's not an easy problem to fix. It's going to take a community pulling their heads together and finding out how to deter the violence and to channel the youthful energy into sports, learning, or community service.
I'm no expert on gang violence, but there's a few things that I know didn't start the epidemic:
-Grand Theft Auto
-Energy Drinks
-Cellular Telephones
-MySpace.com
...and that was a very good point about yelling "fire" in a theater in a free country.
I've got another bombshell to drop tomorrow in a post. I really like the format BND used for the minimum wage debate.
I love you guys so much- I get to bounce Libertarian views off of some extremely thoughtful people, and learn a ton about the subject at hand from our discussions.
...and you can practically follow me along as I'm reading John Stossel's "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity". I admit to being a tool- this guy is the most straightforward mainstream media man that I have ever had the priveledge of reading.
I will have to read that book Axe. Now that I'm finally done with school, I can read something other than text books.
Looking forward to your bombshell brother.
I will actually post the bombshell...I've been burning the candle at both ends today at work!
Post a Comment