Horror writer King blasts banning violent videogames

[mr insomniac]

Horror writer King blasts banning violent videogames

[Shryke]

link no worky

[Humodour]

[Guest The Architect]

So does that picture.

[Xard]

King is awesome

[astr0creep]

I found a working link but somehow it can't be posted here so here's a preview:

 

 

''SYDNEY (Reuters Life!) - Horror writer Stephen King has criticized plans by a U.S. state to ban violent video games, saying such a move would be undemocratic and it was up to parents to monitor their children's entertainment.''

 

Edited April 9, 2008 by astr0creep

[Fionavar]

Thread pruned: Let's try to avoid placing anything anywhere that requires me to actually do stuff ... and don't kick all of the sand out of the box so early in the morn >_

[Hell Kitty]

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=130731

[Jediphile]

I found a working link but somehow it can't be posted here so here's a preview:

 

 

''SYDNEY (Reuters Life!) - Horror writer Stephen King has criticized plans by a U.S. state to ban violent video games, saying such a move would be undemocratic and it was up to parents to monitor their children's entertainment.''

 

 

Stephen King - angry mothers of America: 1-0

 

"What makes me crazy is when politicians take it upon themselves to play surrogate parents. The results of that are usually disastrous. Not to mention undemocratic," wrote King.

 

Here's the link to the Reuters story: http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyN...D30911520080409

Edited April 9, 2008 by Jediphile

[Gorgon]

Trying to protect your children from mass media is doomed to failure, the desperation inherent in such an attempt is exactly what politicians tap into when they get involved and comment on the subversive influence of computer games. It's just desperation enough to move people off their couches and down to the voting booths.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Gorgon

[Pidesco]

I found a working link but somehow it can't be posted here so here's a preview:

 

 

''SYDNEY (Reuters Life!) - Horror writer Stephen King has criticized plans by a U.S. state to ban violent video games, saying such a move would be undemocratic and it was up to parents to monitor their children's entertainment.''

 

 

Stephen King - angry mothers of America: 1-0

 

"What makes me crazy is when politicians take it upon themselves to play surrogate parents. The results of that are usually disastrous. Not to mention undemocratic," wrote King.

 

Here's the link to the Reuters story: http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyN...D30911520080409

 

He no longer has freakishly large glasses.

[Xard]

You're right, what a shame :sad:

[mr insomniac]

Oops. Sorry about the broken link in the orginal post, everyone. That's what I get for posting it before sleep. Thanks to Astr0creep and Jediphile for finding alternatives.

[Humodour]

Well, he may be a sociopath who loves writing gruesomely violent stories, but he's not exactly an authority on the matter.

[Blarghagh]

Thankfully all these claims are based on common sense for which does not require you to be an authority on anything.

[Humodour]

Yeah?

 

Maybe you could explain the 'common sense' then?

[Gorgon]

I don't think you need to be a social studies or psychology PHD to comment on media saturation and violence in computer games. It's so much part of our daily existence after all.

[Humodour]

But I think you need to know a fair bit about human psychology to comment on the detrimental impact it has on society as a whole over time.

[Gorgon]

I would argue that writers, the ones that are any good that is, are people who notice and comment on what influences society over time for a living, as much as any academic does.

[Dark_Raven]

Its always something or someone else's fault for situation X that occurred except the parents.

 

King's cool BTW.

[Blarghagh]

But I think you need to know a fair bit about human psychology to comment on the detrimental impact it has on society as a whole over time.

 

I think you're missing what the issue here is. It's not the impact of violence in videogames. It's whether or not it's neccesary for the government to become surrogate parents by banning violent videogames.

[Humodour]

Oh?

 

The government has always acted as a 'surrogate parent'. Forums require a certain age for membership, for example. Porn, gambling, alcohol and violent films have all been considered potentially detrimental to children, and thus restricted by the government.

 

It makes logical sense (from a societal stability perspective) for the government to perform a certain minimal level of surrogate parenting.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Provided it's minimal and commands broad public support, I agree. However, the government's main role has to be to encourage the industry to regulate itself and to help parents educate themselves about the issue.

[Blarghagh]

Oh?

 

The government has always acted as a 'surrogate parent'. Forums require a certain age for membership, for example. Porn, gambling, alcohol and violent films have all been considered potentially detrimental to children, and thus restricted by the government.

 

It makes logical sense (from a societal stability perspective) for the government to perform a certain minimal level of surrogate parenting.

 

It's not exactly the problem that the government is acting as a surrogate parent. It's that they're taking this too far because the parents are shirking their responsibilites themselves (and I don't mean in a passive manner, they screw up in a very active way)

 

Sometimes a kid can get their hands on a game because a store is dumb enough to sell a violent game to them anyway, but this actually doesn't happen often at all, especially since stores, due to all the controversy, have been enforcing the rating system more and more themselves.

 

Most of the times, however, it's not because of the store. Most of the times, these kids will get their hands on these games because their PARENTS know nothing about these games, apparently taking ZERO interest in their child's hobby, and will actually BUY them FOR their kids. Subsequently they will nag at the government because it was possible their pure, innocent children got exposed to this kind of content despite their perfect parenting.

 

So, who is making the biggest mistake here? The parents.

Edited April 11, 2008 by TrueNeutral

[Humodour]

Of course. But as far as I can tell you're only giving credence to the "governments should censor violent games from children" stance.

 

Governments should make it so that if a kid wants a game, the parent needs to buy it for the kid, and has a big blaring warning about what the game is. This way it cannot be said the government is taking on the role of the parent - as it makes the parent more actively involved, forces them to make a moral choice about their children rather than continue in ignorance of the game's nature, ideally.

 

I'm thinking like cigarettes have "THESE WILL KILL YOU, BITCH" (is it also surrogate parenting when the government puts death labels on cigarettes?) rather than the small poxy little classification logo at the bottom corner of the game box.

 

And I think that if such a game gets into the hands of a minor it should be a reportable offence as bad as selling porn, gambling or alcohol to minors. Right now, even though legally there is really no difference, in practice there is.