Ralph Nader: Video game firms are 'electronic child molesters'
74 replies, posted
[QUOTE][B]Rallying against President Obama for not cracking down against the creators of violent video games, Nader maintains that these companies spew "violent, addictive, and tawdry sensuality."
[/B]
[IMG]http://asset2.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/01/21/eye2eye_nader_22508_480x360.jpg[/IMG]
[I]Ralph Nader in a 2008 interview on CBS's Eye to Eye program.
(Credit: CBS News)[/I]
Not one to keep his opinion to himself, former presidential candidate Ralph Nader has come down hard on video games. In fact, he has gone as far as to call the companies that make them "electronic child molesters."
In an interview with Politico yesterday, Nader blasted President Obama's gun control package that was unveiled last week. The two-time Green Party presidential candidate said that the president's plan needs to go further in regulating video game creators that add violence to their games.
"Television program violence? Unbelievable. Video game violence? Unprecedented," Nader told Politico. "I'm not saying he wants to censor this, I think he should sensitize people that they should protect their children family by family from these kinds of electronic child molesters."
Nader's outrage comes on the heels of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where 20 children and six others were killed by a 20-year-old shooter.
This isn't the first time Nader has used the phrase "electronic child molesters." After the Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, Colo., in 1999 when two students from the school murdered 12 students and one teacher, Nader raged that corporations shared some of the blame.
"All this is fine with the companies -- these boys and girls spent more than $25 billion last year, and what they got in return is violent, addictive, and tawdry sensuality," Nader wrote in his blog at the time. "These electronic child molesters have little sense of restraint or boundaries. Their odious fare is becoming more coarse, more violent, and more interactive to seduce these youngsters into an addiction of direct video game involvement in the mayhem."[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57565068-93/ralph-nader-video-game-firms-are-electronic-child-molesters/"]Source[/URL]
i disagree
Man that green party sure looks more appealing with each word that comes out of their mouth
i love when politicians who've never had direct first-hand experience with the subject continue to make grossly inaccurate statements about said subject
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;39311089]Man that green party sure looks more appealing with each word that comes out of their mouth[/QUOTE]
I think they've reach their nadir at this point.
"Steam molests my wallet" joke
Also, what a fucking asshole for comparing video games to child molestation.
Okay Ralph.
Sure thing Ralph.
Time for your daily meds, Ralph.
If this was EA they were taking about, the better term would be "franchise molesters".
Had to.
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16550652/old%20men.jpg[/IMG]
I bet he never played a videogame.
Fuck off old man
I was molested by my cousins copy of GTA:SA for PS2, I haven't been the same since
what a dolt
Oh Ralph Nader, what happened to you?
For fuck's sake, it's 2013 and people are still calling for government censorship of things they don't like.
Fuck off, Nader.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;39311502]For fuck's sake, it's 2013 and people are still calling for government censorship of things they don't like.
Fuck off, Nader.[/QUOTE]
to be fair (i think nader deserves that), he didn't say anything about censorship
i thought you were cool nader
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;39311097]i love when politicians who've never had direct first-hand experience with the subject continue to make grossly inaccurate statements about said subject[/QUOTE]
Direct first-hand experience with what? Child molesting? :v:
I think..online child molesters are electronic child molesters? I dunno..
All respect for Ralph Nader has been lost in the title.
-snip he fixed it-
go to bed ralph
[QUOTE=AfroNick;39311950]...this is Ralph Nader?[/QUOTE]
I was typing something else, elsewhere about Ron... fuck.
I fixed it
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;39311089]Man that green party sure looks more appealing with each word that comes out of their mouth[/QUOTE]
man third parties could just solve everything
[QUOTE=areolop;39312007]I was typing something else, elsewhere about Ron... fuck.
I fixed it[/QUOTE]
's all good.
EA is worse than the pope
What grandstanding rubbish.
"People aren't hating what I hate; better lump what I hate in with things I know people universally hate."
I mean can he really demonstrate without cherry-picking that games are getting more interactive? I mean, he [i]at least[/i] has to put up an argument against QTEs becoming more prevalent.
Unless that's more interactive in his opinion? Man, if only he was [i]clear[/i] on what he meant by anything he said he might've actually said something worth reading.
Edit: Though there is something to be said about electronic child molesters. I can't argue that there's a huge swell in the number of 13 year olds who claim to have vigorously molested my mother.
Interesting to see that Facepunch would drop their entire support for a candidate instantly as a knee-jerk reaction because of fucking national priority number #1: 'his/her stance on video games.'
FYI, he's not saying to censor video games, what he's saying has always been in line with his stringent anti-corporate stance. But god forbid he attacks video game corporations.
I've met Nader on several occasions, he has a big bald spot on the back of head. You would think eventually he'd stop hiding it.
[quote]Their odious fare is becoming more coarse, more violent, and [i]more interactive[/i] to seduce these youngsters into an addiction of direct video game involvement in the mayhem.[/quote]
lets get this straight, press X to win isn't interactive compared to games of the past.
For what it's worth, I think it's an unsubstantial argument that's intentionally vague because I doubt he has a real opinion that has substance on the matter -- grandstanding, in a word.
A candidate's stance on videogames doesn't inform my full opinion of a candidate. If they're just attacking the videogames industry to score points because its a popular pinata, however, and don't really have a dog in the fight -- [i]that[/i] is when they'd score a few negative points. Dropping support on a candidate who's chosing to focus on issues without having real plans of actions or substantive arguments to bring forward -- I don't think that's a bad thing. That's just people basically saying "I'm not going to support a candidate who's just going to try and ride on popular opinion alone while wasting precious time and money with political fluff."
In any case, I don't think he's really attacking video game corporations. I think he's just trying to score 'free points' by taking a swing at the pinata other folks had already put up.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.