U.S. State Senator Apologizes to Gamers, Insults Them Again

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

U.S. State Senator Apologizes to Gamers, Insults Them Again

image

Leland Yee takes to Twitter to address gamers.

Have you ever had someone apologize to you, but in the course of their apology they end up just making things worse? California Senator Leland Yee just did exactly that via his official Twitter account, addressing comments he made to the San Francisco Chronicle last week that gamers need to "quiet down" in regards to the gun control discussion. In his pseudo-apology, Yee addresses gamers directly, admitting that his choice of words wasn't the best.

"Gamers, I admittedly didnt use best words to SFchron. Meant video game industry has inherent conflict of interest in the gun violence debate," reads Yee's first tweet on the matter. This gem followed shortly thereafter: "I have a lot of respect for many gamers - many are on my staff and in my family - but the industry has profited at the expense of children."

Ah, I think I understand now; It's OK to be a gamer as long as Yee knows you personally, and you either work for him or have the same last name. Of course, his words fell rather flat on the Twitter crowd, with the vast majority of responses calling out his tweets as a rather obvious and hastily-performed exercise in damage control. Still, it's good to hear that Yee doesn't dislike all gamers. Just, you know, the ones he's never met.

Source: Twitter via GamePolitics

Permalink

Well that's just crap.

I'll have my child slaves draft a letter of complaint as soon as I get home...and let them learn to read...and write.

MikeWehner:
Still, it's good to hear that Yee doesn't dislike [b]all[/a] gamers. Just, you know, the ones he's never met.

I spotted a mistake! Do I win a prize? Can my prize be a puppy?!

OT: The video game industry has profted at the expense of children, but the fast food industry hasn't? Or literally any other industry which aims products towards children?

Tool.

Oh California...

So, I'm wondering when California legislators are going to start calling out Hollywood for all the violence in movies, y'know, their biggest export/tax base?

I can't seem to find it at the moment, but there's a really great video someone put together with a bunch of major actors calling for gun control, and measures to prevent gun violence, then showing a montage of them shooting people in a dozen or so movies each.

Yes, when it comes to gun control we should let the NRA do the talking. It's not like they have a conflict of interest.

As a heads up: it should be "California state senator," as he's a member of the California legislature. "U.S. Senator" is used for Senate members in the US congress.

I think I can understand what he means. By game industry, he doesn't mean gamers, he means the businesses. And that's fair enough because the big businesses in the game industry are fucking awful. They're obviously not causing real life gun violence, but they do profit from unfair business.

Still, he is obviously out to ruin games as we know them otherwise he wouldn't have spent this much time on the subject.

While I disagree with the guy and this is just shameless damage control I think what he actually means is that he doesn't hate gamers just the industry which I can understand a bit more.

I don't hate ni^H^Hgamers, some of my best friends are ni^H^Hgamers.

Also, if he wants to talk about making money off kids, maybe he'd best direct his comments across the aisle to Republican leader Bob Huff, who's the senator for Anaheim. You know, where Disneyland is. Or perhaps at fellow Democrat Curren Price, who has Hollywood in his district.

....Hey Canada? Where is a good place to live there? I may be moving soon.

So as soon as someone says something about gaming that we don't like, it's an insult? What the guy said was harmless. The author of this article needs to learn the difference between a comment and an insult.

Hey MikeWehner, playing another game of Name That Party? /check Yup.

I don't see the offense in this. Where does he say, "I only respect those I work with and my family."

And I also see his reasoning, kind of. I think he thinks that the industry thinks that if guns get outlawed(or whatever) then game companies wouldn't be able to 'sell' them anymore.

But even then that makes little to no sense.

See why us Rational Californians consider Yee an idiot? Dude tries to ban violent games, then he tries to ban a safety feature on a firearm, then he supports the practice of removing the fins from sharks for shark fin soup. Who'da thunk that a state senator from San Fran would cause so much trouble...

SonicWaffle:
Can my prize be a puppy?!

Tell ya what, I'll grab a haddock, hack the fins off, stick on some paws and a tiny terragill, and BAM! A cute puppy for you. Can get it done by Thursday.

OT:

image

That's a really cheap shot, considering that there's a bunch of other industries out there which "profit at the expense of children". Is what he said an insult? No, not really. Is it a cheap, overused argument calculated to draw in a specific profile of voter? Yes, yes it is.

DVS BSTrD:
Yes, when it comes to gun control we should let the NRA do the talking. It's not like they have a conflict of interest.

The NRA probably thinks a conflict of interest is something that gets resolved at ten paces with assault rifles.

As for Leland Yee, it must be hard listening to the guy in person when his breath permanently smells like his feet.

I can't believe he almost literally used the "I have nothing against gamers, some of my best friends are gamers" line, without a hint of irony.

themilo504:
While I disagree with the guy and this is just shameless damage control I think what he actually means is that he doesn't hate gamers just the industry which I can understand a bit more.

That's the impression I got. This article felt like a misinterpretation of what he was clearly trying to say ("gamers aren't bad - I know that personally").

Does that mean the NRA cannot be involved in the gun control debate because of a conflict of interest also? Because I might be okay with that then :P

In serious that is really lousy apology, plus it just shows how little he understands the issues at hand when it comes to the gun control discussion.

And what's so wrong about what he said?

I'm surprised he hasn't brought forth a new measure that will force all video games sold in California to wear condoms.

Entitled:
I can't believe he almost literally used the "I have nothing against gamers, some of my best friends are gamers" line, without a hint of irony.

"I mean, I don't judge, man. It's perfectly fine to like video games as long as you just keep it to yourself and don't enlist in the military openly. Wait, what was I talking about?"

RyQ_TMC:

That's a really cheap shot, considering that there's a bunch of other industries out there which "profit at the expense of children". Is what he said an insult? No, not really. Is it a cheap, overused argument calculated to draw in a specific profile of voter? Yes, yes it is.

If anything, the media's overblown coverage of the Sandy Hook situation was benefiting the deaths of children a helluva lot more than video games ever did.

tangoprime:
Oh California...

So, I'm wondering when California legislators are going to start calling out Hollywood for all the violence in movies, y'know, their biggest export/tax base?

I can't seem to find it at the moment, but there's a really great video someone put together with a bunch of major actors calling for gun control, and measures to prevent gun violence, then showing a montage of them shooting people in a dozen or so movies each.

It's happened, Video games are just the current boogieman. For all their criticisms of the US, the UK went even crazier with it banning a huge list of so called "Video Nasties".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Nasties

This is nothing new, it's pretty typical for politicians in the western world to want to attack boogiemen and people's freedoms than dealing with the real issues, which are usually big, and touchy, enough to be political suicide so they let the problems get worse while hoping someone else will make the nessicary sacrifices to their personal career to get the provlems solved.

As far as the differance between what Hollywood liberals say and do, yeah... it's been noted for years. One of the big reasons why I don't take the left wing and a lot of it's "faces" seriously, ditto for people who base their positions on what the left wing media says given what a mess it is.

Like Leland Yee, the bottom line seems to be that it's okay as long as they, or people they know do it, but for the rest of us poor pathetic goobers, we need to be protected from outselves, we can't be trusted with our own freedoms.

It's also noteworthy that there is a whole clique-thing involved here and a lot of big money that comes from being a political face. There have been articles on it before. When a celebrity stops being young, hip, and relevent, perhaps moving on to "movies with weight and meaning" since nobody wants to see them in summer popcorn flicks anymore, a good way to stay on screen is to become a "face" for issues and get into politics as a support man. That way you have your money, can push for critical (if not commercial) acclaim as a "serious actor", and can be seen on TV since you'll be given a moment in the spotlight.

One of the first big Hypocrits I followed was Danny Glover. This is a guy who made his name doing movies like "Lethal Weapon", alongside a number of lurid B-movies (I think one was called "Deadly Drifter" or something like that), as well as being well known in the action/B-movie scene to act as the fill in for Arnie in the quick cash grab sequel "Predator 2" which stands out more for combining the Alien and Predator mythologies than being a great movie (though Danny Glover DID do a decent job with it as far as he went). He came out years ago as being an anti-gun/anti-violence advocate, sure he did a few "movies with weight" but the bottom line was this is a guy who came up as an ultra-violent action hero, typically playing a cop who acts as a borderline vigilante (protests for the sake of humor aside).... yeaaah, okay Danny, we believe you weren't just after the exposure. I'm sure you really hated yourself for taking all that money and doing how many Lethal Weapon movies? I'm sure someone held you at gunpoint and made you fight Predator, you didn't want to do it, it wasn't about the money, they held you at gunpoint! Held your kids hostage even.... uh huh.

As much as people should know to ignore the Hollywood left wing on anything, it just doesn't happen.

Oh jeez... what does one wear to keep clean during a shitstorm?

Okay some basic backround on Mr. Yee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Yee

That's just some very basics. Basically the guy is a chinese-born American immigrant who came into the country at the age of 3, and whose profession before politics was being a Child Psycologist.

What I haven't been able to find here is some of the stuff showing his ties to China, but it came up during this contreversy over shark fins. He's been called racist, and a socialist/commie sell out for a lot of reasons, but one of the more telling moments was because he supported removing fins from sharks for cultural reasons and because it was a delicacy, despite standing up to similar practices when it's come to other issues.

The reason why we need to take Mr. Yee seriously is because he's both the second most senior/powerful Democrat in California, which is one of the most richest and most powerful states in the union, and also represents a token minority in political power being the first Asian to rise to such a position.

He's got his fans, he's got his haters, and his very nature puts him in an unusual position where he's difficult to question or do anything to without raising spectres of racism and discrimination, even while he does ambigious things in the other direction (shark fin contreversy), and apparently maintains some dubious connections to Mainland China. I haven't found anything reliable, but it seems like it's suspected China might also be funding his political campaigns, much like the the accusations for Al Gore.

Jump on that if you want, but I'm trying to give a balanced view of whose being dealt with even if you don't like it.

From the way things seem right now, Mr. Yee seems to mostly be involved in this for the attention. The majority of the left wing is going anti-gun, and attacking free speech and video games, so he's more or less on board. I think his problem is that he's receiving more resistance from the gaming population (on both sides of the fence) than he expected for what to him is ultimatly a "whipping boy"/"standing stone" issue. Hence his desire for the gaming community to "quiet down" so to speak, and ham handed attempts to handle the situation.

The guy represents a definate threat, but at the end of the day I think it's all about the position. Chances are when everyone else quiets down, Yee will too (though I could be wrong). Until then he's a powerful figurehead and will be used because of his ethnic nature, and the way it gives him a relatively untouchable status.

That's my take on the situation from what I've been reading about him and his career, and a quick scan of what else he's been up to "recently" and the criticisms made of him and his backround. If you look into the whole Shark Fin thing you can see a lot more about him, and what people say about him, outside of the arena of gaming. I make the ethnic comments because it really seems to come up there and yeah... his position seemed to largely be based off of cultural signifigance more than anything else. It might also just be me, but he seemed more personally invested in that than his video game posturing now that he doesn't have a frontline seat to be seen in with a case being argued at the supreme court.

He's annoying, but seems to be a bad target, because at the end of the day he's an oppertunist that goes where the attention is.

RyQ_TMC:

SonicWaffle:
Can my prize be a puppy?!

Tell ya what, I'll grab a haddock, hack the fins off, stick on some paws and a tiny terragill, and BAM! A cute puppy for you. Can get it done by Thursday.

OT:

image

That's a really cheap shot, considering that there's a bunch of other industries out there which "profit at the expense of children". Is what he said an insult? No, not really. Is it a cheap, overused argument calculated to draw in a specific profile of voter? Yes, yes it is.

Well techically, any issue can be argued as "affecting the children" especially in a society where there is less desire to actually parent and filter media. If the parents are doing their job, any questions about the media and it's potential effects are irrelevent. "Think Of The Children" arguements generally come down to the arguement that everyone should give up their freedom so parents don't have to do their job.

That said, as I pointed out in my analysis of Mr. Yee, I think he's doing a very general job here, hence the stereotypes. He wasn't expecting as big a fight, or as much of one over the long term, especially not from grass roots gamers. I personally don't think he's invested in this issue, other than to follow the party line, and try and see to be taking an aggressive stance in order to further his career. Attacking the boogie man of the moment is always a safe way to go about doing that.

As I pointed out in another post, we've been here before, and the UK even went so far as to ban violent movies as "Video Nasties" at one point only to have it repealed.

The biggest threats right now are to #1 keep the goverment's fingers out of being able to regulate free speech by in some wa controlling video games and who can play them officially. #2 prevent the goverment from further eroding the right to keep and bear arms. Be less concerned about the posturing of guys like Leeland Yee and what they actually try and do.

Now, this is just sensationalism seizing on every remark this man says.

I don't agree with everything he has to say about videogames, but I respect that he apologised. And as far as it goes, his criticisms of violent videogames and the industry have some merit. It's hard to acknowledge that. The industry could do more not to glamorise extreme violence. But this should be in conjunction with the film and firearms industries. It is a cultural issue which can't be addressed by punitive legislation targeting one or the other.

That's not what he meant author Mike, clearly. Nothing he says reads as an insult there. He might be misguided, might be some hyperbole, but I see no digs. And you're reading too much into it. Gaming is an activity, not an orientation, be willing to discuss it for good or for ill.

How can anyone get mad at a remark like that? It's a bit badly worded and totally unrelated to what he was talking about but come on. "Politician says misinformed thing" is not exactly news. Also he insulted the industry and not gamers and yeah I have to admit he has a point there, it does profit off of children. Just like a lot of other industries like baby food manufacturers and morning after pills.

Oooooh, everyone's always on about the FUCKING CHILDREN!!
I dunno how many times I have to say it, there are games for adults, and games for kids! If a child grows up playing Grand Theft Auto and becomes a drug dealer or something, the fault is on the parents for letting them play that game when they were fucking 6 years old!
All these politicians trying to save the kids are trying to cut off the manky branch at the trunk. Stop trying to punish gamers who never did anything wrong and turn your efforts on teaching parents how to read, then maybe those R18+ stickers will save a few theoretical lives>:(

Lono Shrugged:
How can anyone get mad at a remark like that? It's a bit badly worded and totally unrelated to what he was talking about but come on. "Politician says misinformed thing" is not exactly news. Also he insulted the industry and not gamers and yeah I have to admit he has a point there, it does profit off of children. Just like a lot of other industries like baby food manufacturers and morning after pills.

Leland Yee:
"Gamers have got to just quiet down," Yee, D-San Francisco, said in an interview last Tuesday. "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. This is about their self-interest."

(Quote from source article)

In a way he was attacking BOTH gamers and the industry.

Jmp_man:

Lono Shrugged:
How can anyone get mad at a remark like that? It's a bit badly worded and totally unrelated to what he was talking about but come on. "Politician says misinformed thing" is not exactly news. Also he insulted the industry and not gamers and yeah I have to admit he has a point there, it does profit off of children. Just like a lot of other industries like baby food manufacturers and morning after pills.

Leland Yee:
"Gamers have got to just quiet down," Yee, D-San Francisco, said in an interview last Tuesday. "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. This is about their self-interest."

(Quote from source article)

In a way he was attacking BOTH gamers and the industry.

Yeah but that was Tuesday, the tweet was Friday. I am talking about the tweet.

I look forward to a day when this image is no longer needed when talking about politics...

image

OT: Just... wow... Apologizing and then making a cheap shot/low blow? For some reason this guy reminds me of Sergey Titov...

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here