Senator says Gamers Have Got to Quiet Down

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

California Senator Leland Yee He's famous for lying about videogames and wasting $1 million of taxpayer money to pay for legal fees in Brown vs. EMA. He Stated in a debate that Gamers Have Got to Quiet Down.
Here's the video:


Discuss!

He's not wrong, you know.

Nice annoying video though.

Mr.BadExample:
He's not wrong, you know.

Nice annoying video though.

How is he not wrong?

He's not wrong in saying "This is a billion dollar industry", and "This is about their self-interest". Those two comments are fact, why because of that we should have no say in any of this? I haven't a clue. Usually it's the ones who have a self-interest in things who speak up is it not?

Umm... no we won't.

This isn't just the big industry giants complaining about the sudden attacks following Sandy Hill, it is the people who view their hobby under threat, AGAIN.

Although, I have to wonder why is he "siding" with the NRA on this? California isn't known for being a gun friendly state (I know, I live there, owning a gun is a pain in the @$$ here). The other California senator just introduced a new Assault Weapon bill for crying out loud! I just don't really understand.

"People who represent the opposite view to mine clearly have no need to participate in the discussion because they are wrong"

Unless he means that gamers should not be part of the discussion because there is no correlation between violent media and violent behavior. (which he isn't, obviously)

Also, I try to avoid cheap shots, but really? Fung shei in building laws? What a load of ol' rubbish.

Tell you what, we will quiet down when gun owners quiet down.

I'm tired of gaming being threatened and insulted and blamed and I'm tired of having to speak up.

Games are games. They are interactive experiences. They're not murder simulators (Well, aside from hitman, maybe). And no, being "just games" does not exclude them from being phenomenal and powerfully emotional experiences (thank you Spec Ops).

aegix drakan:
Games are games. They are interactive experiences. They're not murder simulators (Well, aside from hitman, maybe). And no, being "just games" does not exclude them from being phenomenal and powerfully emotional experiences (thank you Spec Ops).

Isn't being powerful emotively what people more or less what people complain about, though?

Bah, this rock n roll, it's too loud! It's the devil's music, I tell you! It'll drive the kids mad!

I am going to be so happy in 20 years where most of that generation are sniffing dirt. Maybe we'll get to enjoy a period of sanity in both society and politics.

Abomination:
I am going to be so happy in 20 years where most of that generation are sniffing dirt. Maybe we'll get to enjoy a period of sanity in both society and politics.

BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Nah, then there'll be something new to complain about.

The same generation complaining about kids today were once kids fed up with old people complaining about them.

Your generation is going to condemn the next over something equally as stupid. Dunno what, though, maybe the next Justin Bieber?

Abomination:
I am going to be so happy in 20 years where most of that generation are sniffing dirt. Maybe we'll get to enjoy a period of sanity in both society and politics.

Not going to happen. I think each generation thinks exactly the same, and than before they know it they're part of the "insanity"

thaluikhain:

Abomination:
I am going to be so happy in 20 years where most of that generation are sniffing dirt. Maybe we'll get to enjoy a period of sanity in both society and politics.

BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Nah, then there'll be something new to complain about.

The same generation complaining about kids today were once kids fed up with old people complaining about them.

Your generation is going to condemn the next over something equally as stupid. Dunno what, though, maybe the next Justin Bieber?

At least it won't be complaining about interactive media as a form of corruption.

I would dare say that social change has never been so accelerated as our present generation. The internet allows for so many cultural and social interactions without the need for expensive travel or organising open forums.

Abomination:
At least it won't be complaining about interactive media as a form of corruption.

We won't be complaining about the current interactive media as a form of corruption. When our kids can download virtual reality porn videos that place them right in the middle of the action, we'll be the old fogies screaming about the evils of new media.

Abomination:
I would dare say that social change has never been so accelerated as our present generation. The internet allows for so many cultural and social interactions without the need for expensive travel or organising open forums.

Which in time will be viewed as safe and normal, at which point something new (see above) will appear that differs from the norm and frightens us.

SonicWaffle:

Abomination:
At least it won't be complaining about interactive media as a form of corruption.

We won't be complaining about the current interactive media as a form of corruption. When our kids can download virtual reality porn videos that place them right in the middle of the action, we'll be the old fogies screaming about the evils of new media.

Abomination:
I would dare say that social change has never been so accelerated as our present generation. The internet allows for so many cultural and social interactions without the need for expensive travel or organising open forums.

Which in time will be viewed as safe and normal, at which point something new (see above) will appear that differs from the norm and frightens us.

Well then, if I'm right in that I don't think we'll be like that or you're right in the opposite. The point stands that the CURRENT luddites will be dead and I will get to enjoy being one, dictating how the rest of the world stays incapable of socially or technologically progressing due to my bias and determination to uphold my comfortable status quo.

thaluikhain:

aegix drakan:
Games are games. They are interactive experiences. They're not murder simulators (Well, aside from hitman, maybe). And no, being "just games" does not exclude them from being phenomenal and powerfully emotional experiences (thank you Spec Ops).

Isn't being powerful emotively what people more or less what people complain about, though?

Really? All I hear from the anti-gamer crowd is "OHGOSHITSALLVIOLENCEANDTEACHINGOURKIDSTOMURDERPEOPLE!!!".

Lilani:
Bah, this rock n roll, it's too loud! It's the devil's music, I tell you! It'll drive the kids mad!

Wha....what are you doing back there in the 1950's?? They proved that wrong. Get back here to 2013! Jeez, everyone knows its the VIDEO GAMES that are too loud and will drive kids mad. Honestly.....

knight steel:

Mr.BadExample:
He's not wrong, you know.

Nice annoying video though.

How is he not wrong?

Well, he's wrong in saying that gamers should be quiet in the debate because they (and the industry) have interests in preventing legislation from being passed.

Gamers need to stop because compared to a professional legislator, their opinions hold no merit. People like Mr. Yee hold the public's best interest at heart and are only trying to do what's best for everyone.

You might not think it, but stopping the production of violent smut is worth it even if it only saves one life.

If there was ever an example of someone who is pushing hard for a nanny state its probably this guy. "I don't think these are good so no one can have them and if you disagree SHUDDUP". But he is a legislator from San Fransisco so what can you expect?

Mr.BadExample:

Gamers need to stop because compared to a professional legislator, their opinions hold no merit. People like Mr. Yee hold the public's best interest at heart and are only trying to do what's best for everyone.

Uh, no, when our interests get threatened, we have every right to make noise about it if we care, and many of us do.

You might not think it, but stopping the production of violent smut is worth it even if it only saves one life.

Hmmm, that sounds awfully familiar.....

OH YEA. It's only the argument that's used, and never found valid, in damn near every social conservative's blathering when they want to forcibly dictate entertainment that paying adults can choose to enjoy. (that doesn't involve actual harm to human beings or sexual exploitation of children or animals before you go THAT route).

Mr.BadExample:

Well, he's wrong in saying that gamers should be quiet in the debate because they (and the industry) have interests in preventing legislation from being passed.

The fact that we have an interest in this is exactly why we shouldn't be silent. A democratic government can't work if the people only get involved with issues that don't affect them.

Gamers need to stop because compared to a professional legislator, their opinions hold no merit.

If a professional legislature knows nothing about games, it is his opinion on gaming legislation which should be considered without merit. A good legislator would defer to the opinions of people who know a field better than himself, rather than make decisions in ignorance.

You might not think it, but stopping the production of violent smut is worth it even if it only saves one life.

First, nobody has managed to show a credible link between violent media and actual violence.

Second, who gets to decide what counts as "violent smut"?

BOOM headshot65:
Wha....what are you doing back there in the 1950's?? They proved that wrong. Get back here to 2013! Jeez, everyone knows its the VIDEO GAMES that are too loud and will drive kids mad. Honestly.....

Nonsense! Get with the programme.. it's Holographic Gore Racing which is too loud and will drive kids mad..

Oh fuck, spoilers!

Sir, we vote for the people that run our country, including you, and we can get rid of you without much effort. We have a medium that gives us wonderful entertainment and artistic expression in a manner that was completely impossible 30 years ago. If people are going to continue to try and censor or restrict our medium, we'll fight back with all we can, voices included.

In short, go fuck yourself.

The guy seems to be unable to stop as his "apology" almost sounds worse than the actual statement:

http://gamepolitics.com/2013/01/29/leland-yee-apologizes-gamers-comments-made-san-francisco-chronicle#.UQg452dc5A5

Well at least he tries to apologise. He's still got it wrong regarding videogames as a whole, but it's hard to contest that videogame producers have a commercial interest in not seeing any sort of ban on videogames.

Blablahb:
Well at least he tries to apologise. He's still got it wrong regarding videogames as a whole, but it's hard to contest that videogame producers have a commercial interest in not seeing any sort of ban on videogames.

So people who will be affected by a ban have no say in it? That...that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

thaluikhain:
Isn't being powerful emotively what people more or less what people complain about, though?

Yeah, but it's a ridiculous complaint that conveniently neglects to acknowledge that the same concern applies equally to books, movies, television, music, stage performances, paintings, poetry, religious texts, sports fandom, etc.

The only thing that sets games apart from the rest is that it's a (relatively) new form of entertainment that's not widely understood by the people in positions of power that are looking for things to assign blame to and demonize.

Mr.BadExample:
You might not think it, but stopping the production of violent smut is worth it even if it only saves one life.

By that logic, I suggest we also halt production of Legos. They are an unnecessary form of entertainment and they present a very real choking hazard. Banning Legos would be worth it, even if it only saves one life.

Y'know what, while we're at it, let's ban all sports. They're unnecessary, and are responsible for countless major injuries and fatalities among both youth and adults each year. Banning all sports would be worth it, even if it only saves one life.

By the logic that all things unnecessary should be banned if it saves just one life, pretty much everything would have to be banned. We'd have a society of children so ridiculously sheltered that they'd by law be incapable of doing anything without being encased in bubble wrap - and even that would be dangerous, since you can potentially be suffocated by it. It's the very worst level of over-protectiveness.

senator yee:
Gamers have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for violence and the industry's lust for money. This is a billion-dollar industry.

So basically he's an anti gamer bigot and tells people who disagree with him to shut up. Nice guy.

Tuesday Night Fever:

thaluikhain:
Isn't being powerful emotively what people more or less what people complain about, though?

Yeah, but it's a ridiculous complaint that conveniently neglects to acknowledge that the same concern applies equally to books, movies, television, music, stage performances, paintings, poetry, religious texts, sports fandom, etc.

The only thing that sets games apart from the rest is that it's a (relatively) new form of entertainment that's not widely understood by the people in positions of power that are looking for things to assign blame to and demonize.

Oh, certainly the concern applies to other things, but that's not to say that people saying it about games aren't wrong as such, just myopic.

thaluikhain:
Oh, certainly the concern applies to other things, but that's not to say that people saying it about games aren't wrong as such, just myopic.

I wouldn't say they're wrong, as there isn't conclusive evidence either way just yet. I suspect that when there is, games will be about on-par with all other forms of entertainment media - but I fully admit that to be speculation. However, I would say that their complaints are incredibly hypocritical. If you're going to go on a crusade against violence in the media, you should at least have the integrity to go after all violent media instead of demonizing the ones you don't understand while ignoring all the rest simply because they're more "established" within the culture. That's my primary issue here.

It makes me sick that people are demonizing video games, but no one seems to care that the nightly news frequently shows video from Iraq and Afghanistan with real casualties. Loading up a WWII flight sim is apparently appalling, but turning on the History Channel and watching footage of a real WWII bomber getting shredded by gunfire and going down in flames is treated with a kind of cold distance that makes it A-OK to watch a bunch of airmen, probably just teenagers, getting cooked alive before slamming into the ground. Our society is seriously messed up.

Oh no, this is totally unbiased. Not that i necessarily agree with the senator, but just saying.

hes right on the industry lusting for money, otherwise you wouldnt see a madden/cod/mario/etc game out seemingly every year (if not sooner). He's right baout it being self interest. and he's right on how much gaming makes (espially if you go worldwide).

Too a degree he's right we shouldnt have as big of an opinion when just like he's a biased source the majority of gamers are also biased. Again doesnt really mean he's right and that I agree. and it really looks poor when you want to put his contact information down (despite it being easily findable I'm sure) and open the entire world to whats going to amount to verbal attacking (if not something more harmful because everyone knows there's unstable people in every demographic and someone may actually choose to aprove a more poignant and physical point.

your best course of action is to vote against him if he's truly that bd as long as the other guy isnt worse, or find smone sympathetic to your cause but still competetant in other regards senators will face and have them run.

TL;DR the guys a dick but the womans a bitch and in no way better.

emeraldrafael:
Too a degree he's right we shouldnt have as big of an opinion when just like he's a biased source the majority of gamers are also biased.

I don't think they're biased. Right now the gamers are just right.

Suppose evidence of videogames causing violence were to emerge, and gamers would still oppose any regulation in large majority, then they'd be biased. Suppose the sale of the Carmageddon series had caused a huge spree of people purposely causing deadly accidents, I'd support a ban in a second. But as it stands, there's just no evidence that games cause even a barely noticeable increase in agressive tendencies, let alone a clear link between acts of violence and videogames.

Mr.BadExample:

knight steel:

Mr.BadExample:
He's not wrong, you know.

Nice annoying video though.

How is he not wrong?

Well, he's wrong in saying that gamers should be quiet in the debate because they (and the industry) have interests in preventing legislation from being passed.
Gamers need to stop because compared to a professional legislator, their opinions hold no merit. People like Mr. Yee hold the public's best interest at heart and are only trying to do what's best for everyone.
You might not think it, but stopping the production of violent smut is worth it even if it only saves one life.

Surely you meant to put that in sarcasm pink (or magenta as the forum calls it).

Now for Mr Yee
"Gamers, I admittedly didnt use best words to SFchron. Meant video game industry has inherent conflict of interest in the gun violence debate"
Conflict of interest? Aren't we all interested in stopping violence? Only complete psychos want more violence. The problem is all the groups opposing violence like the NRA, senate, congress, and a million other special interest groups have different ideas and they can't agree on anything. The NRA says put cops in classrooms, some members of the government say we need crazy gun restrictions, all this talk but nobody agrees with anyone else so nothing gets done.

Xan Krieger:
Surely you meant to put that in sarcasm pink (or magenta as the forum calls it).

I'm not sure why you'd think I'm not completely serious when people hold this exact position on other issues.

Now for Mr Yee
"Gamers, I admittedly didnt use best words to SFchron. Meant video game industry has inherent conflict of interest in the gun violence debate"
Conflict of interest? Aren't we all interested in stopping violence? Only complete psychos want more violence. The problem is all the groups opposing violence like the NRA, senate, congress, and a million other special interest groups have different ideas and they can't agree on anything. The NRA says put cops in classrooms, some members of the government say we need crazy gun restrictions, all this talk but nobody agrees with anyone else so nothing gets done.

NRA is Merchants of Death/Possible Pedophiles/Bloodthirsty, Racist Rednecks. Please don't tell me to Poe's Law Pink my sincerely held beliefs again, Sir.

Mr.BadExample:

Xan Krieger:
Surely you meant to put that in sarcasm pink (or magenta as the forum calls it).

I'm not sure why you'd think I'm not completely serious when people hold this exact position on other issues.

Now for Mr Yee
"Gamers, I admittedly didnt use best words to SFchron. Meant video game industry has inherent conflict of interest in the gun violence debate"
Conflict of interest? Aren't we all interested in stopping violence? Only complete psychos want more violence. The problem is all the groups opposing violence like the NRA, senate, congress, and a million other special interest groups have different ideas and they can't agree on anything. The NRA says put cops in classrooms, some members of the government say we need crazy gun restrictions, all this talk but nobody agrees with anyone else so nothing gets done.

NRA is Merchants of Death/Possible Pedophiles/Bloodthirsty, Racist Rednecks. Please don't tell me to Poe's Law Pink my sincerely held beliefs again, Sir.

I'm sorry but when you say things like "People like Mr. Yee hold the public's best interest at heart" I have a genuinely hard time taking that seriously. He's blown millions of dollars of tax-payer money fighting against video games in the past. Also why do you feel that way about the NRA? Seems like an extreme view.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked