CA State Senator says gamers have 'no credibility' in violent video games debate, should 'just quiet - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39363237]This guy reminds me of Jack Thompson. Oh god I said his name, probably summoned him or something[/QUOTE] Naw, you gotta look into a mirror and say his name three times.

This is like saying that congressman have no credibility in congressional debates.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39371198]This is like saying that congressman have no credibility in congressional debates.[/QUOTE] When a Congressman says that high-level government workers need a pay raise, Facepunch members collectively have no problem jeering at such an obviously biased statement. Of course he's going to say they need higher pay- because he wants more money. His opinion isn't credible because he's obviously so clearly biased. Then when the same principle is used against gamers here, suddenly it's Wrong and Bad and a Big Deal. According to the logic demonstrated in this thread, Congressmen know better than anyone else exactly how much money they deserve and nobody else has the right to say otherwise. Then we'll equivocate knowledge with bias, and say that [I]clearly[/I] this Congressman is saying that cooks can't judge food, implying that being knowledgeable on a subject and having a strong personal stake in an issue are one and the same. Violent videogames are almost certainly no more harmful than any other form of violent media, and a ban is completely unwarranted, but the idea that the people best qualified to make such a decision would be people who are not psychologists and have severe bias is stupid, as is the idea that saying judges shouldn't be biased is tantamount to saying professionals can't give expertise on their work. It's completely unrelated and it's dumb as hell.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39373476]but the idea that the people best qualified to make such a decision would be people who are not psychologists and have severe bias is stupid[/QUOTE] :words: Nobody [I]ever[/I] said that gamers are more credible than psychologists - the argument throughout the thread has been "dismissing the opinion of gamers because they don't have the proper credentials is stupid."

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39373516]Nobody [I]ever[/I] said that gamers are more credible than psychologists - the argument throughout the thread has been "dismissing the opinion of gamers because they don't have the proper credentials is stupid."[/QUOTE] Nobody is dismissing [I]opinion[/I]. The question is whether or not an opinion has credibility. If a person is not an expert, and clearly has massive bias in the issue, I really don't see why a more-or-less uneducated opinion has any clout. Whether or not violent video games negatively influence people is not an argument that gamers can win through personal anecdotes and righteous outrage. It's up to psychologists and formal study, because their input is both informed and (ostensibly) unbiased.

[QUOTE]State Sen. Leland Yee, who authored the 2005 California bill to ban sales of ultra-violent video games only to have the Supreme Court rule it unconstitutional, still vehemently believes the issue is a "public health matter." "Gamers have got to just quiet down," Yee, D-San Francisco, said in an interview 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] "State senators have got to just quiet down" "State Senators have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for law control, scape goating and lust for lobbying bribe money. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest." See how it can work both ways, sen. Leland Yee? Fucking asshole.

I get rock solid downstairs when I blow a guy up in Quake. My cock lusts for violence.

This is like saying drivers have no credibility in hit and run incidents I'm pretty sure the ones who've played it and have experience would know [editline]27th January 2013[/editline] [IMG]http://imgkk.com/i/pigx.jpg[/IMG] He looks like Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Why is every politician in Sacramento a fucking moron? Jesus Christ, the legislature can't do [I]anything[/I] right. There's protests in front of the capitol basically every other day because of something these idiots said or did.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaF9nbLo8as[/media]

[QUOTE=catbarf;39373476]When a Congressman says that high-level government workers need a pay raise, Facepunch members collectively have no problem jeering at such an obviously biased statement. Of course he's going to say they need higher pay- because he wants more money. His opinion isn't credible because he's obviously so clearly biased.[/QUOTE] There's a huge, massive difference between asking for more and asking for what you have to not be taken away. [editline]27th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=wickedplayer494;39374811][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaF9nbLo8as[/media][/QUOTE] The ending of that episode really shocked me the first time I saw it. [sp]poor kid.[/sp]

Can't wait til someone invents a new media so it can take all the kneejerk, ungrounded accusations.

Well that's a pretty douche bag moving disregarding the opinions of millions of his constituents. Even if this is about our self-interests, your point? Is there something wrong with people defending their passions?

[QUOTE=Magmacow358;39376182]Can't wait til someone invents a new media so it can take all the kneejerk, ungrounded accusations.[/QUOTE] "Augmented Reality is making out children violent by blurring the line between reality and fantasy" Calling it now

[B]OKAY I'LL QUIET DOWN SIR[/B] [B]VIDEO GAMES TOTALLY CAUSE MASS MURDER[/B] [B]YOU'RE WELCOME[/B]

I can see why he's coming up with this argument. He basically treats gamers the same way one would treat a drug addict. A drug addict doesn't have the judgemental capability to realise that their drug is destroying them physically or psychologically. Most of them have a bias towards their drug, and will obviously defend it from criticism. This isn't only restricted to addictions. Basically anything that alters the mind of a person can affect their judgement. A person who suffers a change in personality from brain damage, for example, will not realize this change. Thus, they cannot tell you that suffering brain damage alters your personality. Of course, in this case, it's easy to see if violent games induce violence in people. There would have had to be a lot more violent acts in the past, correlating with the rise of these games' popularity. But to fully determine the effects, you would have to study a person who's been exposed to these games while you yourself are unaffected. However, as this has already been done, and also proven to have very little to no effect, I do not see the point of dicussing the subject any longer.