So, why do politicians hate video games.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Yeah, a bit on the nose, espesialy there are a few that are gamers in office.

However, I have to wonder how long until one of the presidential hopeful's mentions "video games cause real world Violence," to the groaning of what has to be a tone of potential voters.

Yeah, we'll probably still vote for them vut Trump, Clinton, Obama, Romney, Dubaya, and so on and so on use this as a scapegoat, despite no noticable difference in people to commit violence than say sports where we see over zealous dads beat the crap out of couches, referies, and even kids on the other team for what ever kept their kid from scoring.

Film and television had the same blame. Heck, I remember my 11th grade American Lititure teacher mention that the first time Huckleberry Finn got banned wasn't for the numerous use of the N word, but the fears kids might emulate young Huck.

Yet, despite stronger evidence for Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, people still believe this. Why?

Oh, you're asking why politicians still hate video games.

Part of that is how video games are viewed. Popular opinion (outside of gamers themselves) is to think of games first and foremost as either virtual toys or (more recently) casual mobile games. Not knocking those types of games, but when that's your only frame of reference, it's hard to see why anyone would become personally invested in them. Future generations not even owning their games probably won't help change that either.

A tiny part is how art is viewed, too. If any jackass can duct tape a banana to a wall and call it art, what's the point of giving 'art' any kind of special treatment? That kind of thinking ignores that art has various functions and can be measured by how many or how well it fulfills those functions. It's an easy trap games-as-art discussions usually fall into.

Another part is laziness. It's easier to slap around a scapegoat than actually addressing a problem. Like how we could acknowledge that the Federal Assault Weapon Ban of the 90s was sabotaged from the start and try again, this time with a manditory buyback program, a moratorium on both manufacturing and sales, and no sunset clause. Or we could make mental health screenings free, along with any prescribed antipsychotics. Or we could drag the CEOs of Atari, Nintendo of America, and Sega into a room and shake our finger at them while holding up a light gun made by Konami[1] again.

[1] The best part: the Konami Justifier was only used to play as either law enforcement or agents of law enforcement at the time of those hearings

I'm not counting on it. And even if they do, so what?

for the same reason you grandparents hated your parents comic books.

they're old farts who didn't grow up with them and don't understand them.

saint of m:
Yeah, a bit on the nose, espesialy there are a few that are gamers in office.

However, I have to wonder how long until one of the presidential hopeful's mentions "video games cause real world Violence," to the groaning of what has to be a tone of potential voters.

Yeah, we'll probably still vote for them vut Trump, Clinton, Obama, Romney, Dubaya, and so on and so on use this as a scapegoat, despite no noticable difference in people to commit violence than say sports where we see over zealous dads beat the crap out of couches, referies, and even kids on the other team for what ever kept their kid from scoring.

Film and television had the same blame. Heck, I remember my 11th grade American Lititure teacher mention that the first time Huckleberry Finn got banned wasn't for the numerous use of the N word, but the fears kids might emulate young Huck.

Yet, despite stronger evidence for Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, people still believe this. Why?

Because they like appealing to ignorant, old dumb, asses. Nothing new, but this is dying down with each generation, and they know it. Obama usually got a long with gaming fine, and used the "we'll look in to it" if games cause violence. Of course he never followed through and was used to please some old people or non-gamers that hate gaming. Otherwise, he held a decent respect for gamers. Hilary and Trump being the worst example. I remember her trying to launch the campaign against GTA San Andreas and nothing happened and nothing changed. The only thing new showing she was just another bitch in a box stand. Trump is self explanatory, and I won't need to say anything about the ultimate bitch in a box stand.

Because politicians are old and out of touch and because videogames are an easy scapegoat for social ills and gun violence despite study after study showing there is zero correlation. Guns have the NRA, first amendment and militant advocates so that's a no-go. Social ills would require investing in mental healthcare but this would mean marginally less tax brakes for the 2% billionaires. Videogames it is then.

I don't think politicians hate video games at all. Politicians likely really love video games since its the perfect scapegoat. Right now there are still a sizable amount of people to old to understand video games and politicians know they can easily con these people by using video games as a distraction. Going after video games allows politicians to pretend they take actions without actually having to take any real action. That video games don't have many strong lobbies only helps matters for politicians.

This will be the case until there is a big enough sea change that gradually educates the reluctant masses on subjects which are overshadowed by willful ignorance and petty bias. Eventually we'll get there, but people in general have a tendency to be pretty stubborn and flat out stupid.

Having said that, and adding to what others have said above there are almost certainly politicians that love video games but unfortunately "it doesn't fit the narrative" to say that out loud in public. Because if they were going to be truly honest about direct and indirect causes of violence in youth, they'd have egg all over their faces.

Eh, it's mostly over apart from the odd few stuck in the past and desperately needing another of the shitzillion scapegoats available to avoid responsibility. Still waiting for most to catch up on the weeds and MDMAs though, but people are way more judgemental and ignorant about that whole area of funsies.

Its gonna be interesting seeing Gen X and Millenial Politicians in the future who did grew up with Video Games.

Neurotic Void Melody:
Eh, it's mostly over apart from the odd few stuck in the past and desperately needing another of the shitzillion scapegoats available to avoid responsibility. Still waiting for most to catch up on the weeds and MDMAs though, but people are way more judgemental and ignorant about that whole area of funsies.

Politicians always need that convenient enemy, but the whole "vidya gaemz makes ya da violent" fervor does to have died down a fair bit these past years, only dug up on some media for those times a nutcase buys a shopping cart full of guns and goes on a kill streak for whatever just cause he conjured up for himself. Notably when the culprit is of the variety that rhymes with "salt shite" and "Cronkite's publicist".

Samtemdo8:
Its gonna be interesting seeing Gen X and Millenial Politicians in the future who did grew up with Video Games.

I guess in decades past it helped that the majority people who played games tended to be young i.e. below voting age, which is also known as politically irrelevant, and could be safely ignored. But we're getting to the point where many are old enough to cast a ballot. Maybe even run for office. So now they might actually matter, at least enough to be political tools.

If I was being cynical, I'd say it's because they own (or are owned by) everything else that could be said to promote violence, who else are they going to blame?

Have politicians moved against games in a serious way, though? All that there ever seems to be is games getting used a scapegoat after yet another tragedy in America, but nothing ever seems to change or be affected by this scapegoating.

Sure, some governments worth their salts have started investigating loot boxes, but this wasn't done out of a fear or hatred of the medium, but because of cries of concern from customers.

Chimpzy:

Neurotic Void Melody:
Eh, it's mostly over apart from the odd few stuck in the past and desperately needing another of the shitzillion scapegoats available to avoid responsibility. Still waiting for most to catch up on the weeds and MDMAs though, but people are way more judgemental and ignorant about that whole area of funsies.

Politicians always need that convenient enemy, but the whole "vidya gaemz makes ya da violent" fervor does to have died down a fair bit these past years, only dug up on some media for those times a nutcase buys a shopping cart full of guns and goes on a kill streak for whatever just cause he conjured up for himself. Notably when the culprit is of the variety that rhymes with "salt shite" and "Cronkite's publicist".

Samtemdo8:
Its gonna be interesting seeing Gen X and Millenial Politicians in the future who did grew up with Video Games.

I guess in decades past it helped that the majority people who played games tended to be young i.e. below voting age, which is also known as politically irrelevant, and could be safely ignored. But we're getting to the point where many are old enough to cast a ballot. Maybe even run for office. So now they might actually matter, at least enough to be political tools.

Most of the people running for politics will be old money types or people who spend their spare time going on holiday retreats and regular social activities instead of playing video games in any serious capacity except as reference material. They arent going to be true diehards who gotten into the political field with the sole purpose of lobbying video games

For the same reason they hate gays, immigrants, D&D and rock and roll: easy scapegoats for complicated issues.

Movies, comic books, jazz music, rock 'n roll, Dungeons and Dragons, video games: All things that parents of their day didn't understand and therefore feared were "corrupting our children", and politicians could point to and say "give me power and I will make that bad thing go away and your children will be innocent and pure forever".

The average age of a US Senator is about 60 and a US congressperson is about 50(mostly due to an influx of millennials elected in 2018). Which pretty much means a lot of them see Video games as quartermunchers or maybe phone games that their kids/grandkids play with no particular value.

Add to this that Senior Citizens(65 and older) tend to make up a very large percentage of voters(for reasons I'm not going to go into here) and you have the same issue. Old people catering to/reelecting other old people(many of whom have been sitting in the same seats for decades), most of whom probably don't know much about or care much for video games and since the New Media is evil, yeah, it's easy to cast blame on them.

Granted,the media has a long record of doing an awful job of actually researching this stuff. There's the infamous "Mass Effect is Porn" thing Fox News did about a decade ago, just for an example.

It's not a politician thing, it's an old person thing. I saw Yang make a point by making a reference to RTS games and how you have to build your bases strongly to build the good units to win and you can't do well by ignoring infrastructure. Also Gabbard at one point made her anti-social media point by referencing that Southpark episode with the human centipede.

Old people are just stuck in old mindsets where games were seen as childish and frivolous, the younger ones get it.

They don't.

This one one of the weird bits about gamers. Games aren't weird. They are not outside. Their main stream normal now, but we (gamers) haven't been able to change our feelings. politicians don't hate games. They don't love games. Games are just normal now. Ya politicians will talk about violent video games, they talk about violet movies, violent books, violent anything. They aren't talking about the games they are talking about the violence.

stroopwafel:
Because politicians are old and out of touch and because videogames are an easy scapegoat for social ills and gun violence despite study after study showing there is zero correlation. Guns have the NRA, first amendment and militant advocates so that's a no-go. Social ills would require investing in mental healthcare but this would mean marginally less tax brakes for the 2% billionaires. Videogames it is then.

Don't forget that organizations like the NRA will put a lot of effort into blaming videogames to try to turn attention away from guns.

CaitSeith:
For the same reason they hate gays, immigrants, D&D and rock and roll: easy scapegoats for complicated issues.

Maybe so, but this is bipartisan. THose that hate and love gays, guns, Jesus will skip down the hallway hand in hand on this issue.

Dalisclock:
The average age of a US Senator is about 60 and a US congressperson is about 50(mostly due to an influx of millennials elected in 2018). Which pretty much means a lot of them see Video games as quartermunchers or maybe phone games that their kids/grandkids play with no particular value.

Add to this that Senior Citizens(65 and older) tend to make up a very large percentage of voters(for reasons I'm not going to go into here) and you have the same issue. Old people catering to/reelecting other old people(many of whom have been sitting in the same seats for decades), most of whom probably don't know much about or care much for video games and since the New Media is evil, yeah, it's easy to cast blame on them.

I wonder how long this will be the case as the older generation stop voting after a certain point in their age due to either feeling they are not right of mind or tune with things enough anymore, senility, or their bodies give up and they start going on their next great adventure on the other side.

nomotog:
Ya politicians will talk about violent video games, they talk about violet movies, violent books, violent anything. They aren't talking about the games they are talking about the violence.

No, I don't think this is true. President Trump quite explicitly blamed video games for a mass shooting a little while ago. I've not heard anything even approaching that for films or literature in many years.

Video games make for a very easy scapegoat, particularly for a base which is already fairly reactionary and composed primarily of an older generation (Republican voters).

Silvanus:

nomotog:
Ya politicians will talk about violent video games, they talk about violet movies, violent books, violent anything. They aren't talking about the games they are talking about the violence.

No, I don't think this is true. President Trump quite explicitly blamed video games for a mass shooting a little while ago. I've not heard anything even approaching that for films or literature in many years.

Video games make for a very easy scapegoat, particularly for a base which is already fairly reactionary and composed primarily of an older generation (Republican voters).

If your using video games as a scapegoat, you don't hate video games. You just wanted a scapegoat. Trump also blamed movies, metal illness and even guns. He wasn't looking to knock video games down a peg.

But let me pose another thought. What if people talk about violent video games because they are simply more violent then movies. Like you can argue that the hypothetical video game is more violent then the hypothetical movie. (It's hard to compare one to one but as a whole I do think it's true that video games on aggregate are more violent then other media.)

nomotog:

If your using video games as a scapegoat, you don't hate video games. You just wanted a scapegoat. Trump also blamed movies, metal illness and even guns. He wasn't looking to knock video games down a peg.

Of course he doesn't personally have a visceral distaste for video games. nomotag was saying that politicians are just talking about violence in general; that's not the case when figures specifically scapegoat one particular medium. He has no interest in talking about violence in general: he does have an interest in shifting conversations away from regulation/ the NRA.

saint of m:

CaitSeith:
For the same reason they hate gays, immigrants, D&D and rock and roll: easy scapegoats for complicated issues.

Maybe so, but this is bipartisan. THose that hate and love gays, guns, Jesus will skip down the hallway hand in hand on this issue.

Dalisclock:
The average age of a US Senator is about 60 and a US congressperson is about 50(mostly due to an influx of millennials elected in 2018). Which pretty much means a lot of them see Video games as quartermunchers or maybe phone games that their kids/grandkids play with no particular value.

Add to this that Senior Citizens(65 and older) tend to make up a very large percentage of voters(for reasons I'm not going to go into here) and you have the same issue. Old people catering to/reelecting other old people(many of whom have been sitting in the same seats for decades), most of whom probably don't know much about or care much for video games and since the New Media is evil, yeah, it's easy to cast blame on them.

I wonder how long this will be the case as the older generation stop voting after a certain point in their age due to either feeling they are not right of mind or tune with things enough anymore, senility, or their bodies give up and they start going on their next great adventure on the other side.

Pretty sure it's gonna be a combination of the older voters dying off and the younger ones increasing in number. One could argue that older voters should have their voting rights contingent on meeting basic competency tests(kind of like how Voter ID or residency laws exist) but that would raise holy hell among certain politicians, particularly the ones who depend on the older vote to stay in office.

nomotog:
They don't.

This one one of the weird bits about gamers. Games aren't weird. They are not outside. Their main stream normal now, but we (gamers) haven't been able to change our feelings. politicians don't hate games. They don't love games. Games are just normal now. Ya politicians will talk about violent video games, they talk about violet movies, violent books, violent anything. They aren't talking about the games they are talking about the violence.

No, politicians already tried to make incursions into personal liberties by specifically trying to ban certain kind of videogames. They never tried to do that with movies or any other kind of medium. I believe the only reason they couldn't follow through is b/c it bounced off the first amendment in supreme court.

Trying to ban videogames is a modern kind of book burning but thankfully it's protected by the constitutional right of free speech.

If videogames can have positives effects on certain people, why couldn't they also have negative effects?

Gamers obviously have a bias, which is why their cries are ignored.

Here's an easy example.

If Sad music can make you sad and that sadness can make you cry, and happy music can make you happy and that happiness makes you smile/laugh, then why can't angry music make you angry and that anger have you act out?

stroopwafel:

nomotog:
They don't.

This one one of the weird bits about gamers. Games aren't weird. They are not outside. Their main stream normal now, but we (gamers) haven't been able to change our feelings. politicians don't hate games. They don't love games. Games are just normal now. Ya politicians will talk about violent video games, they talk about violet movies, violent books, violent anything. They aren't talking about the games they are talking about the violence.

No, politicians already tried to make incursions into personal liberties by specifically trying to ban certain kind of videogames. They never tried to do that with movies or any other kind of medium. I believe the only reason they couldn't follow through is b/c it bounced off the first amendment in supreme court.

Trying to ban videogames is a modern kind of book burning but thankfully it's protected by the constitutional right of free speech.

There was never a chance video games would really be banned. We felt like they would, but there was never a realistic possibility they would be. In the well over 10 years since that time video games have gotten more secure.

Lufia Erim:
If videogames can have positives effects on certain people, why couldn't they also have negative effects?

Gamers obviously have a bias, which is why their cries are ignored.

Here's an easy example.

If Sad music can make you sad and that sadness can make you cry, and happy music can make you happy and that happiness makes you smile/laugh, then why can't angry music make you angry and that anger have you act out?

That last one is a stretch. If any kind of creative expression resonates with people or evokes an emotional response then it's testament of it's artistic qualities or subjective interpretation of it. Transformative quality is the mere definition of art. That doesn't make any sane person want to 'act out'. That is just ridiculous. It exists on a completely different plane from crazy people who commit (gun) violence. It's not like crazy needs an excuse. Crazy needs access to mental health programs or psychiatric care in an early stage and no access to guns.

Access to guns is the problems here. The same violent videogames are played all over the world but this random gun violence is almost exclusively an American problem.

stroopwafel:

Lufia Erim:
If videogames can have positives effects on certain people, why couldn't they also have negative effects?

Gamers obviously have a bias, which is why their cries are ignored.

Here's an easy example.

If Sad music can make you sad and that sadness can make you cry, and happy music can make you happy and that happiness makes you smile/laugh, then why can't angry music make you angry and that anger have you act out?

That last one is a stretch. If any kind of creative expression resonates with people or evokes an emotional response then it's testament of it's artistic qualities or subjective interpretation of it. Transformative quality is the mere definition of art. That doesn't make any sane person want to 'act out'. That is just ridiculous. It exists on a completely different plane from crazy people who commit (gun) violence. It's not like crazy needs an excuse. Crazy needs access to mental health programs or psychiatric care in an early stage and no access to guns.

Access to guns is the problems here. The same violent videogames are played all over the world but this random gun violence is almost exclusively an American problem.

People can act out in a lot of ways. Like video games could help confidence people guns are cool and necessary, so support measures to increase access to guns.

Lufia Erim:
If videogames can have positives effects on certain people, why couldn't they also have negative effects?

Gamers obviously have a bias, which is why their cries are ignored.

Here's an easy example.

If Sad music can make you sad and that sadness can make you cry, and happy music can make you happy and that happiness makes you smile/laugh, then why can't angry music make you angry and that anger have you act out?

If sadness only makes you cry and happiness only makes you laugh, why would anger make you do anything but shout out loud in anger?

Money. Interest groups pay them to say they hate them so they, the groups, can collect donations. Also lawyers LOVE video game litigation. Because nothing ever happens and they get to charge out the ass for it. Its basically sitting at the ATM taking $500 an hour

stroopwafel:
That last one is a stretch. If any kind of creative expression resonates with people or evokes an emotional response then it's testament of it's artistic qualities or subjective interpretation of it. Transformative quality is the mere definition of art. That doesn't make any sane person want to 'act out'. That is just ridiculous. It exists on a completely different plane from crazy people who commit (gun) violence. It's not like crazy needs an excuse. Crazy needs access to mental health programs or psychiatric care in an early stage and no access to guns.

Access to guns is the problems here. The same violent videogames are played all over the world but this random gun violence is almost exclusively an American problem.

Access to guns is obviously one of the really big factors, but that's not to say there aren't others.

IMHO, video games absolutely can promote this or that, in exactly the same way as any other artform. When people do that on purpose we call it propaganda (or advertising), after all.

stroopwafel:

Lufia Erim:
If videogames can have positives effects on certain people, why couldn't they also have negative effects?

Gamers obviously have a bias, which is why their cries are ignored.

Here's an easy example.

If Sad music can make you sad and that sadness can make you cry, and happy music can make you happy and that happiness makes you smile/laugh, then why can't angry music make you angry and that anger have you act out?

That last one is a stretch.

That doesn't make any sane person want to 'act out'. That is just ridiculous. It exists on a completely different plane from crazy people who commit (gun) violence. It's not like crazy needs an excuse. Crazy needs access to mental health programs or psychiatric care in an early stage and no access to guns.

Is it? Anger is an emotion is it not? Just like Sadness and Happiness. From what i can tell, normal, healthy individuals, experience anger. From what i gathered also, normal healthy individuals make poor decision while Sad, Happy or Angry. Excluding Anger seems disingenuous at best.

The problem is, people are looking at Videogames as something that WILL make you violent rather than Can make you violent.

There's a difference. And different people react in different ways to media. Some people will watch a sad movie and cry. Others will watch a sad movie, and feel comfort ( happiness) and again other will watch the same movie and feel angry.

And yet, as soon as videogames are discussed, gamers, ignore the "angry". It's hypocritical.

CaitSeith:

Lufia Erim:
If videogames can have positives effects on certain people, why couldn't they also have negative effects?

Gamers obviously have a bias, which is why their cries are ignored.

Here's an easy example.

If Sad music can make you sad and that sadness can make you cry, and happy music can make you happy and that happiness makes you smile/laugh, then why can't angry music make you angry and that anger have you act out?

If sadness only makes you cry and happiness only makes you laugh, why would anger make you do anything but shout out loud in anger?

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.831624-RAGE-QUIT-to-the-point-of-smashing-your-controller-monitor-keyboard-TV-etc

Well here's a thread on these very forums about people acting out due to rage. You tell me.

 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