Support NeoGAF

[Silent Chief]

Keep voting Republican. I think we're close to a videogame ban.
Well, not really, I guess EA and company will just throw money at them the way the gun lobby does.
$75 Call of Duty, here we come.

 

[scrob6]

Keep voting Republican. I think we're close to a videogame ban.
Well, not really, I guess EA and company will just throw money at them the way the gun lobby does.
$75 Call of Duty, here we come.

Or we could all vote Democrat. I'm sure open borders, a welfare state, and demonizing the few who actually contribute are recipes for success.

 

[Geki-D]

I'm honestly totally fine with the GOP blaming games. The videogame industry has become infested with Leftist propaganda. I'm all for the GOP cracking down on the entire industry & will greatly enjoy all the soyboy tears.

That awkward moment someone says they're ok with a political party lying to everyone and wrongly targeting people because they have a gripe with the politics of a few but wants everyone of that group to burn either way.
I guess we're lucky it's about a job sector this time and not, say, and ethnic group...

Besides, the 2nd Amendment is far more important than videogames.

What well regulated militia are you apart of?

 

[New Yorks Finest]

only when you get people pretending like this only ever happens in the US. it's actually pretty common. mass murders even happen in countries where guns have been banned.

Mass Shootings by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

this is pretty common. we live in a violent world. the US just has way more people and landmass, more opportunities for things to go wrong.

Goddamn period !!!! Especially last sentence...mass population, fifty states, lots can go wrong and unfortunately..its not the last one.

 

[Cynn]

Someone’s messed with the time line again. In the world I came from originally it was the Democrats attacking games. Now the parties have switched.

 

[scrob6]

Someone’s messed with the time line again. In the world I came from originally it was the Democrats attacking games. Now the parties have switched.

Democrats are also blaming video games. But OP gets his news from Vox. So... ORANGE MAN BAD!

 

[48086]

As a non-US citizen, can I ask why the 2nd Amendment seems to be so important to (seemingly?) a lot of US citizens? I really have a hard time understanding why one would want to own and carry a weapon. I am not trying to stir shit up, I just want to understand the mindset behind this.

I’m on my phone so I won’t go into much detail but there are a few reasons. One reason is because an armed population keeps a constitutional republic from turning into a dictatorship or more dangerous form of government. Also, if the second amendment is easily changed or restricted than it sets precedent for other amendments to be easily changed or restricted.

In other words, America’s don’t want to be Venezuela where a socialist gov takes over and screws everything up or the UK where you can be arrested for muh wrong speak.

 

[Damien Crowley]

Bets are open on scrobs account survival rates...

 

[keraj37]

Just don't play games where you shoot people and problem solved!

That leaves you 2% of current games on market, should be enough.

 

[AmaiMask]

That awkward moment someone says they're ok with a political party lying to everyone and wrongly targeting people because they have a gripe with the politics of a few but wants everyone of that group to burn either way.
I guess we're lucky it's about a job sector this time and not, say, and ethnic group...

What well regulated militia are you apart of?

The game industry is not what it once was, SJWs have hijacked it & used it to push their cancerous ideology down everyone's throats. Why would I have an issue with the industry being cracked down upon? And SJWs are already protesting Devs & games that "sexualize women" and all that other stupid shit. Look at that thread on ResetEra about the very subject. It has well over 100 pages. Not to mention all the terrible business practices that are anti-consumer like microtransactions and day 1 DLC. Yeah, I'm absolutely fine with the GOP going after the entire industry. So many soyboys flock to videogames & use it as a soapbox to preach their bullshit, enough of that. And we're not talking about an ethnic group, we're talking about videogames.

As for your last point, it doesn't really change the fact that American citizens would still have the right to own firearms. The right would simply be the ones in militias & the Left would still be crying about guns either way. These people fundamentally don't like guns & want to be rid of them entirely, militia or not.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Just don't play games where you shoot people and problem solved!

That leaves you 2% of current games on market, should be enough.

Just change the color of blood to green, or turn them into robots. That's why Germany has fewer shootings, didn't you know?

 

[Hudo]

I’m on my phone so I won’t go into much detail but there are a few reasons. One reason is because an armed population keeps a constitutional republic from turning into a dictatorship or more dangerous form of government. Also, if the second amendment is easily changed or restricted than it sets precedent for other amendments to be easily changed or restricted.

In other words, America’s don’t want to be Venezuela where a socialist gov takes over and screws everything up or the UK where you can be arrested for muh wrong speak.

Thank you for your reply. I think that makes sense. Just one additional question: Is the form of government (i.e. a parliamentary democracy) not fixed in the constitution? I ask this because that seems to make governments who try to change the form of government possibly a lot harder (since the supreme court, and other executive or judicial instances, could basically say "Trying to abolish democracy is illegal.") I know that this is probably naive thinking and people who really want to change the form of government would probably find a way to subvert the supreme court and all other "failsafe" mechanisms. And then there's the issue if there's true democracy if you don't have the freedom to change the form of government...but that's another rabbit hole, IMHO.

Sorry for asking/bothering you guys so much. And also, I really don't want to come across as trying to lecture or knowing what the solution is (I don't really know). I am not in a position to do so, as I am not even a US citizen.

 

[Damien Crowley]

Just change the color of blood to green, or turn them into robots. That's why Germany has fewer shootings, didn't you know?

Politicians still blame all those brutal "Egoshooter"(s) for any instance that happened here. *shrug*

 

[Geki-D]

The game industry is not what it once was, SJWs have hijacked it & used it to push their cancerous ideology down everyone's throats. Why would I have an issue with the industry being cracked down upon? And SJWs are already protesting Devs & games that "sexualize women" and all that other stupid shit. Look at that thread on ResetEra about the very subject. It has well over 100 pages. Not to mention all the terrible business practices that are anti-consumer like microtransactions and day 1 DLC. Yeah, I'm absolutely fine with the GOP going after the entire industry. So many soyboys flock to videogames & use it as a soapbox to preach their bullshit, enough of that. And we're not talking about an ethnic group, we're talking about videogames.

Well praise be the Republicans, then. You want them to come on in and ban violent video games oh and you can bet they'll be taking away your virtual tiddies too because they also hate that shit.

This is literally one of the dumbest things I've read on GAF "I want to destroy video games because there are gay people are more blacks in them these days!"

You're way worse than the people on Era.

 

[scrob6]

Thank you for your reply. I think that makes sense. Just one additional question: Is the form of government (i.e. a parliamentary democracy) not fixed in the constitution? I ask this because that seems to make governments who try to change the form of government possibly a lot harder (since the supreme court, and other executive or judicial instances, could basically say "Trying to abolish democracy is illegal.") I know that this is probably naive thinking and people who really want to change the form of government would probably find a way to subvert the supreme court and all other "failsafe" mechanisms. And then there's the issue if there's true democracy if you don't have the freedom to change the form of government...but that's another rabbit hole, IMHO.

Sorry for asking/bothering you guys so much. And also, I really don't want to come across as trying to lecture or knowing what the solution is (I don't really know). I am not in a position to do so, as I am not even a US citizen.

The left doesn't need to 'subvert the Supreme Court.' In 2008, 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices ruled that the 2nd amendment does not protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Once a Democrat majority is on the Supreme Court, which will happen very soon based on demographics and voting patterns, you can kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye (free speech = hate speech, guns should be illegal, etc.)

 

[AmaiMask]

Well praise be the Republicans, then. You want them to come on in and ban violent video games oh and you can bet they'll be taking away your virtual tiddies too because they also hate that shit.

This is literally one of the dumbest things I've read on GAF "I want to destroy video games because there are gay people are more blacks in them these days!"

You're way worse than the people on Era.

They hate virtual tiddies and yet don't obsess over it the way SJWs obsess over it, at all. SJWs have actively infiltrated the entire industry & gotten companies to obey their commands. Sony for example is already cracking down on certain sexualized games, and MK11 infamously changed its females clothing to appease SJWs & went "woke". The alt-right haven't been fucking with video-games nearly as much as SJWs have, and the GOP are only really going after games because the Left keep bitching about guns & want to remove the 2nd amendment. Maybe if the Left stopped crying over guns the GOP would stop trying to go after violent video games, ever think of that? And it's not simply blacks & gays in the games, it's the ideology that's causing them to be there that's the issue here.

And of course you think I'm worse than Era, you likely agree with much of what they say.

 

[Dada55000]

As a non-US citizen, can I ask why the 2nd Amendment seems to be so important to (seemingly?) a lot of US citizens? I really have a hard time understanding why one would want to own and carry a weapon. I am not trying to stir shit up, I just want to understand the mindset behind this.

As also a non-burger, from what I've gathered, the casual citizen's mindset is a combination of valid desire to defend oneself, and america fuck yeah guns cool with token mentions of the constitution. A level above, a lot of smarter people, including the people that wrote the second amendment, agree that it is a deterrent against tyrannical powergrabs/despots, as a nation armed to this degree can't be occupied effectively by military and can successfully revolt if need be. Despots and such are a natural occurence btw, once the political system is being gamed and exploited over time.

And it does work, it's basically the reason why all those Middle-Eastern insurgencies can't just be dealt with. Long as they have AKs, bodies, trucks, supporters, makeshift bombs and the desire to continue, there's no capitulating that. You either escalate to the Ottoman route of pacification (genocide), mobilize enough troops and commit to long term occupation and creation of a puppet state with the goal of reshaping the nation's culture (post-WW2 US occupied Japan) or you leave.

You're way worse than the people on Era.

lol, go read the "would you send someone to hell thread" on REE and have the face to claim that again

 

[Dane]

jesus man i just seen this trump video.
what an absolute joke this is blaming video games.

i hope one day you americans will find what is causing all these deaths

(by you americans i mainly mean the idiot media fear mongering)

The big majority of the murderes were raised in a dysfunctional family.

 

[Geki-D]

They hate virtual tiddies and yet don't obsess over it the way SJWs obsess over it, at all.

You clearly weren't of age in the 90's, early 2000's. That or you're willfully ignorant.

SJWs have actively infiltrated the entire industry & gotten companies to obey their commands.

"Infiltrated" lol. Like Ed Boon for the MK11 example is this brand new dev, right off the rack. Can you actually prove that devs were right wing long ago? Care to explain how people who have gone through school to get their jobs, worked for years and might have more left leaning views have "infiltrated" the games industry? Under whose orders? The lizard people?

The alt-right haven't been fucking with video-games nearly as much as SJWs have

Yeah, I've noticed a serious lack of Jew killing games... I'd say this is a good thing.

MK11 infamously changed its females clothing to appease SJWs & went "woke".

Too bad they angered the SJWs by hiring Ronda Rousey. I guess they're just like NASA with the flat Earth; the conspiracy is so well put together but they keep making these dumb mistakes that only Flerfers can see. They're evil geniuses & idiots at the same time.

and the GOP are only really going after games because the Left keep bitching about guns & want to remove the 2nd amendment. Maybe if the Left stopped crying over guns the GOP would stop trying to go after violent video games, ever think of that?

What? Where are you even getting this from? Proof? What does what the left do have to do with how and why republicans blame video games? What bunch of silly misdirection. Republicans have been attacking video games since they went on the market. Again, you're either willfully ignorant or very very young.

And it's not simply blacks & gays in the games, it's the ideology that's causing them to be there that's the issue here.

Ok, so riddle me this; How can a game have gay people in it without you instantly seeing it as "SJW pandering"?

And of course you think I'm worse than Era, you likely agree with much of what they say.

I never go to Era. That said you clearly want to insert your politics into video games and take away artistic freedom from game devs. You're exactly the same as the SJWs. Difference is I've never heard an SJW say they want to nuke the games industry from orbit just because they don't like the politics of some people in it. You want millions of people to lose their jobs because "TEH ES JAY DLB-OOHz".

You've got the worst case of sour grapes I've ever seen. Utterly ridiculous.

 

[Dural]

The left doesn't need to 'subvert the Supreme Court.' In 2008, 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices ruled that the 2nd amendment does not protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Once a Democrat majority is on the Supreme Court, which will happen very soon based on demographics and voting patterns, you can kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye (free speech = hate speech, guns should be illegal, etc.)

If you go by what several of the Dem candidates have said, they want to stack the supreme court by voting to increase the number of justices the next time they have control of the presidency and both chambers. At that point you can say goodbye to our Republic.

Edit: Just saw this posted on Breitbart: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019...nce-blaming-video-games-for-violence-is-weak/

 

[48086]

Thank you for your reply. I think that makes sense. Just one additional question: Is the form of government (i.e. a parliamentary democracy) not fixed in the constitution? I ask this because that seems to make governments who try to change the form of government possibly a lot harder (since the supreme court, and other executive or judicial instances, could basically say "Trying to abolish democracy is illegal.") I know that this is probably naive thinking and people who really want to change the form of government would probably find a way to subvert the supreme court and all other "failsafe" mechanisms. And then there's the issue if there's true democracy if you don't have the freedom to change the form of government...but that's another rabbit hole, IMHO.

Sorry for asking/bothering you guys so much. And also, I really don't want to come across as trying to lecture or knowing what the solution is (I don't really know). I am not in a position to do so, as I am not even a US citizen.

Don't apologize, those are great questions! Questions I unfortunately probably won't really be able to accurately answer because they are so nuanced. Basically, in my opinion, the founders and writers of the US Constitution created a form of government that was intended to be small and only work as long as the politicians played by the rules. Almost like a gentleman's agreement. There are built in checks and balances, meaning no one branch of the government is suppose to have more power than the other, but those can be subverted. Another thing to consider is the ongoing debate of whether the constitution is a "living breathing document". In other words, can the constitution be interpreted based on the current times and modern day political rhetoric. The alternative is that the constitution should be interpreted as it was originally written by the original founders of the US.

One example of how those two things can come into play is what's known as executive order. Those are directives given by the president which then become enforced as laws. An executive order can be challenged in the courts (here is an example of checks and balances) and the courts can rule if the executive action can stay or if it needs to be terminated. Now, what could happen is that a president who wants to fundamentally change the US signs an executive order and an activist judge (someone who rules based on their on personal political ideology instead of ruling in an unbiased way) who claims the constitution is a living breathing document rules that the executive order is ok. So, going back to your question, what if that executive order was one that fundamentally changed the system of government or one that stated that the federal government was now in control of a major private industry? One thing to realize is that there won't be a sudden switch in the actual form of government. For example, one day the US won't just turn into a dictatorship or socialist government. The idea is that it will happen gradually and slowly. For example, the Patriot Act which was created after 9/11 expanded the government's powers in ways that would cause the US founders to spit out their ale. Another example is the recent Obamacare debacle. Forcing people pay the federal government if they didn't buy healthcare would also make the founders spit out their ale.

 

[Damien Crowley]

Erm... how again is fucking Breitbart a quotable source now?

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Erm... how again is fucking Breitbart a quotable source now?

Like most sources he is an aggregator of news. Try discussing the content rather than the source

 

[Aurelian]

If you go by what several of the Dem candidates have said, they want to stack the supreme court by voting to increase the number of justices the next time they have control of the presidency and both chambers. At that point you can say goodbye to our Republic.

Edit: Just saw this posted on Breitbart: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019...nce-blaming-video-games-for-violence-is-weak/

I love how conservatives are claiming Democrats will represent the end of the country while Trump operates a kleptocracy that routinely tries to circumvent the process of law (he has lost 90% of his court battles over deregulation), and Republicans gerrymander districts, disenfranchise voters and stack the SCOTUS in their own way (obstructing Obama's pick while fast-tracking Trump's).

This isn't to give carte blanche to anything the Dems might do, but for goodness' sake, don't pretend that Trump and the GOP are stalwart defenders of the Republic when they're anything but.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I love how conservatives are claiming Democrats will represent the end of the country while Trump operates a kleptocracy that routinely tries to circumvent the process of law (he has lost 90% of his court battles over deregulation), and Republicans gerrymander districts, disenfranchise voters and stack the SCOTUS in their own way (obstructing Obama's pick while fast-tracking Trump's).

This isn't to give carte blanche to anything the Dems might do, but for goodness' sake, don't pretend that Trump and the GOP are stalwart defenders of the Republic when they're anything but.

I love how neither that poster nor the person they replied to mentioned Trump at all, but you immediately leapt in with your vehement squeals of TrumpToo™ to make excuses for bad behavior.

This is why your ideology continues to crumble

 

[Damien Crowley]

Like most sources he is an aggregator of news. Try discussing the content rather than the source

Sorry, for my personal feeling of hygiene, i will not ever click on a Breitbart link, so yeah, no can do.

 

[48086]

Trump operates a kleptocracy.

 

[Aurelian]

I love how neither that poster nor the person they replied to mentioned Trump at all, but you immediately leapt in with your vehement squeals of TrumpToo™ to make excuses for bad behavior.

This is why your ideology continues to crumble

You can't support hyperbolic claims about Democrats being the enemy of the Republic and then turn around and accuse others of 'squealing' when they point to evidence of Trump and the GOP eroding that same Republic. I care about viable democracies with fair representation and politicians who operate on behalf of the public instead of themselves; it's a shame you don't.

 

[Aurelian]

It's an observable fact that Trump has been enriching himself; and did you really think those tax cuts for the rich were some kind of selfless gesture?

 

[48086]

It's an observable fact that Trump has been enriching himself; and did you really think those tax cuts for the rich were some kind of selfless gesture?

Oh lol ok. That's cute.

 

[Dural]

You can't support hyperbolic claims about Democrats being the enemy of the Republic and then turn around and accuse others of 'squealing' when they point to evidence of Trump and the GOP eroding that same Republic. I care about viable democracies with fair representation and politicians who operate on behalf of the public instead of themselves; it's a shame you don't.

Hyperbolic? Two of the frontrunners for the party said they want to stack the supreme court if they won. Would that not completely get rid of the checks and balances that we have today? The president doesn't like what the supreme court is made up of when they're in office so they just add more until they have the majority, you're ok with that?

2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court

A series of White House hopefuls are expressing new interest in remaking the courts — payback for Republican aggression during the Obama presidency.

www.politico.com

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

You can't support hyperbolic claims about Democrats being the enemy of the Republic and then turn around and accuse others of 'squealing' when they point to evidence of Trump and the GOP eroding that same Republic. I care about viable democracies with fair representation and politicians who operate on behalf of the public instead of themselves; it's a shame you don't.

Who says I was supporting them? I did not reply to those posters nor did I 'Like' their post. Are you mind-reading again instead of backing up your own statements? Typical behavior for you and your ideology. Can't stand up for your beliefs, so you have to shriek about what others believe and try to beat them over the head from the superior vantage point of your moral authority.

Once again, you resort to blatant character assassination attempts ("it's a shame you don't") based on nothing at all.

 

[Hudo]

Don't apologize, those are great questions! Questions I unfortunately probably won't really be able to accurately answer because they are so nuanced. Basically, in my opinion, the founders and writers of the US Constitution created a form of government that was intended to be small and only work as long as the politicians played by the rules. Almost like a gentleman's agreement. There are built in checks and balances, meaning no one branch of the government is suppose to have more power than the other, but those can be subverted. Another thing to consider is the ongoing debate of whether the constitution is a "living breathing document". In other words, can the constitution be interpreted based on the current times and modern day political rhetoric. The alternative is that the constitution should be interpreted as it was originally written by the original founders of the US.

One example of how those two things can come into play is what's known as executive order. Those are directives given by the president which then become enforced as laws. An executive order can be challenged in the courts (here is an example of checks and balances) and the courts can rule if the executive action can stay or if it needs to be terminated. Now, what could happen is that a president who wants to fundamentally change the US signs an executive order and an activist judge (someone who rules based on their on personal political ideology instead of ruling in an unbiased way) who claims the constitution is a living breathing document rules that the executive order is ok. So, going back to your question, what if that executive order was one that fundamentally changed the system of government or one that stated that the federal government was now in control of a major private industry? One thing to realize is that there won't be a sudden switch in the actual form of government. For example, one day the US won't just turn into a dictatorship or socialist government. The idea is that it will happen gradually and slowly. For example, the Patriot Act which was created after 9/11 expanded the government's powers in ways that would cause the US founders to spit out their ale. Another example is the recent Obamacare debacle. Forcing people pay the federal government if they didn't buy healthcare would also make the founders spit out their ale.

Thank you so much for your answer. It makes a lot of stuff clearer (for me). I actually like the notion that the constitution can (and is) a living, breathing document instead of a static thing. But you explained very well how that can be abused as well. So it seems that the problem doesn't necessarily lie in the government mechanisms themselves (alone) but rather everything that has been built around them over time (Although it can be argued that people should've modified all the governmental infrastructures to guard against this). Hmm. Overall, that seems like a topic that is way too complex (for me) to assume an armchair-expert position on, haha.

I am also asking because I have found a bit of new admiration for the US and its constitution after having watched the HBO mini series "John Adams" (highly recommended, btw!). Even if I think that there might be a bit of romatization of everything in there...

In any case, it seems that there is no good possible solution for avoiding future mass shootings in government alone (especially if there's so much complexity around that). My usual go-to answer would be to educate the populace properly and give them schooling in self-reflection and questioning what they hear/see. But that doesn't necessarily solve the issues that the shooters seem to have. But I feel that blaming just one thing, be it video games or lack of gun control, is too reductive. As a German, while we might not have a lot of mass shootings, there's still violent occurences, like in any other country. It's hard to pinpoint why, though. But I know that I refuse the notion that it's only because we've got gun control laws (And there were occurences in history where that wasn't that much of a hindrance to people who wanted to shoot up a place, it just required a bit more planning).

 

[Aurelian]

Who says I was supporting them? I did not reply to those posters nor did I 'Like' their post. Are you mind-reading again instead of backing up your own statements? Typical behavior for you and your ideology. Can't stand up for your beliefs, so you have to shriek about what others believe and try to beat them over the head from the superior vantage point of your moral authority.

Once again, you resort to blatant character assassination attempts ("it's a shame you don't") based on nothing at all.

I literally pointed to a link showing the Trump administration's numerous failed attempts to override the process of law. It's also well demonstrated that Trump is enriching himself at taxpayers' expense (such as diplomatic guests staying at his hotels and golf club visits paid for by the public). And it's no secret that Republicans have been predominantly responsible for gerrymandering and voter-disenfranchising laws in recent years. Courts have overturned multiple examples of those.

Tell me, if you actually care about a viable democracy, will you condemn those actions? They're very real and they're happening right now.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I literally pointed to a link showing the Trump administration's numerous failed attempts to override the process of law. It's also well demonstrated that Trump is enriching himself at taxpayers' expense (such as diplomatic guests staying at his hotels and golf club visits paid for by the public). And it's no secret that Republicans have been predominantly responsible for gerrymandering and voter-disenfranchising laws in recent years. Courts have overturned multiple examples of those.

These are all wonderful platitudes, but instead of just barfing out more rhetoric, let's rewind and have you address the things you said:

- "TrumpToo™" in response to people who never mentioned Trump
- "You can't support hyperbolic blah blah" to someone who never supported the posters in question, either
- Character assassination attempt instead of engaging with discussion ("it's a shame you don't")

Reading seems like a huge challenge for you. Either that, or you are unaware of your own spastic refusal to engage with the actual discussion and instead must flee like a coward to unrelated accusations of your choosing. This behavior has become increasingly common and increasingly frantic from you and your fellow ideologues. Are the walls closing in?

Tell me, if you actually care about a viable democracy, will you condemn those actions? They're very real and they're happening right now.

You can't stand up for your own beliefs. What basis do you have for demanding that I condemn random things at your choosing? I don't apply the same standard of "why haven't you condemned...?" in place of real conversation, real engagement in debate, real logic.

Sad. You expect others to bow down to your ideology yet you can't even justify it when given the slightest pushback. You're a zealot without a Bible, a cult-member without a church sanctuary.

 

[Aurelian]

Hyperbolic? Two of the frontrunners for the party said they want to stack the supreme court if they won. Would that not completely get rid of the checks and balances that we have today? The president doesn't like what the supreme court is made up of when they're in office so they just add more until they have the majority, you're ok with that?

2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court

A series of White House hopefuls are expressing new interest in remaking the courts — payback for Republican aggression during the Obama presidency.

www.politico.com

I don't think that would be great, but at the same time, the Republicans gleefully stacked the court themselves, and did so with a malicious agenda (their ultimate hope being to end Roe v. Wade). I'd rather have a reasonably balanced SCOTUS than to simply see-saw between biases, but you won't have a leg to stand on unless you also condemn the obstruction of Merrick Garland's appointment.

 

[Fbh]

The game industry is not what it once was, SJWs have hijacked it & used it to push their cancerous ideology down everyone's throats. Why would I have an issue with the industry being cracked down upon? And SJWs are already protesting Devs & games that "sexualize women" and all that other stupid shit. Look at that thread on ResetEra about the very subject. It has well over 100 pages. Not to mention all the terrible business practices that are anti-consumer like microtransactions and day 1 DLC. Yeah, I'm absolutely fine with the GOP going after the entire industry. So many soyboys flock to videogames & use it as a soapbox to preach their bullshit, enough of that. And we're not talking about an ethnic group, we're talking about videogames.

How would politicians going after violent videogames affect pretty much anything you just wrote about?
If anything, a ban or severe limitations/regulations on violent videogames would probably push parts of the industry towards making more non violent games like walking simulators and "narrative experiences", which are way more prone to attract, to put it in your words, "soyboys using them as a soapbox to preach their bullshit

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

How would politicians going after violent videogames affect pretty much anything you just wrote about?
If anything, a ban or severe limitations/regulations on violent videogames would probably push parts of the industry towards making more non violent games like walking simulators and "narrative experiences", which are way more prone to attract, to put it in your words, "soyboys using them as a soapbox to preach their bullshit

This.

The so-called soyboys may be using anime girls and "representation" as their current patsy, but the underlying desire is to control. They'll eventually turn their attention to violence (they already complain about "violence against women"), to uncouth opinions uttered by fictional characters (they already complain about stories with so-called "alt right talking points"), to unfair representations of foreign cultures (they already complain about "appropriation").

 

[Geki-D]

- "TrumpToo™" in response to people who never mentioned Trump

Well, the guy said that voting dem would be "the end of the Republic". The Republican candidate is Trump next election, no? So it's being, at the very least, implied that Trump is the superior choice.

Also this whole thread is about Republicans -including Trump- who spoke out about video games. The biggest derailing right now is actually the mention of what Democrats will apparently do with the supreme court...

The so-called soyboys may be using anime girls and "representation" as their current patsy, but the underlying desire is to control. They'll eventually turn their attention to violence (they already complain about "violence against women"), to uncouth opinions uttered by fictional characters (they already complain about stories with so-called "alt right talking points"), to unfair representations of foreign cultures (they already complain about "appropriation").

Why did you say "This" then literally not agree with him on any point? Where did Fbh actually imply any of this was what he was getting at?

 

[ResilientBanana]

Remember when it was music?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Well, the guy said that voting dem would be "the end of the Republic". The Republican candidate is Trump next election, no? So it's being, at the very least, implied that Trump is the superior choice.

Also this whole thread is about Republicans -including Trump- who spoke out about video games. The biggest derailing right now is actually the mention of what Democrats will apparently do with the supreme court...

This whole thread is about people who take unrelated factors and try to draw unfounded conclusions about something.

Republicans blaming videogames and Aurelian blaming TrumpToo both fall into the same category. No need to stretch things.

 

[Aurelian]

These are all wonderful platitudes, but instead of just barfing out more rhetoric, let's rewind and have you address the things you said:

- "TrumpToo™" in response to people who never mentioned Trump
- "You can't support hyperbolic blah blah" to someone who never supported the posters in question, either
- Character assassination attempt instead of engaging with discussion ("it's a shame you don't")

Reading seems like a huge challenge for you. Either that, or you are unaware of your own spastic refusal to engage with the actual discussion and instead must flee like a coward to unrelated accusations of your choosing. This behavior has become increasingly common and increasingly frantic from you and your fellow ideologues. Are the walls closing in?

I mentioned Trump because if someone is going to talk about politicians eroding the foundations of the Republic, you have to acknowledge that he's a problem. The poster was pretending that Democrats were not only going to doom the Republic (they're not), but that they'd be the main cause of it.

I'm glad you don't believe the Democrats will drag down the Republic. I'll be more careful about uses of hyperbole in the fuure.

I have to take issue with your claims of character assassination, though. You have a demonstrable history of glossing over lies and misdeeds from Trump and the Republicans; even now you falsely accuse me of choosing "random" things for you to condemn. If you believe in a fair, functioning democracy, you condemn attempts to undermine that democracy, no matter which party is involved; it's as simple as that.

You can't stand up for your own beliefs. What basis do you have for demanding that I condemn random things at your choosing? I don't apply the same standard of "why haven't you condemned...?" in place of real conversation, real engagement in debate, real logic.

Sad. You expect others to bow down to your ideology yet you can't even justify it when given the slightest pushback. You're a zealot without a Bible, a cult-member without a church sanctuary.

I have stood up for my beliefs. I've provided evidence that Trump and the GOP are eroding the system of government, and I don't think the Democrats should stack the SCOTUS heavily in favour of their own side, either. What I want is a return to an adult, functional US government that respects the rule of law and makes at least a vague attempt to serve the public instead of itself. And the country doesn't have those under Trump and the current Republican party.

 

[Geki-D]

This whole thread is about people who take unrelated factors and try to draw unfounded conclusions about something.

No, it's about:
"Politicians blame video games for recent mass shootings."
Who are, unsurprisingly, Republicans.

Aurelian may have been doing whataboutism but he was replying to whataboutism anyway. Republicans blaming video games is what the thread is about. What Democrats will do with the supreme court, how SJWs have "infiltrated" games and what Trump does (unless related to accusing video games which he did do) are not.

 

[Mobilemofo]

Nothing new here. Politicians have been having a go at the games industry since the early 90s. Fuckin morons. They should focus on taking guns away from little Wankstains rather than moaning about something they just don't understand.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I mentioned Trump because if someone is going to talk about politicians eroding the foundations of the Republic, you have to acknowledge that he's a problem.

So, you acknowledge that your TDS got the better of you. In other words, "TrumpToo™" which is what I said several posts ago.

The poster was pretending that Democrats were not only going to doom the Republic (they're not), but that they'd be the main cause of it.

The absence of mentioning all other factors is not "pretending", and when you accused them of being hyperbolic, they responded by quoting Democrat politicians directly. Keep flailing.

I'm glad you don't believe the Democrats will drag down the Republic. I'll be more careful about uses of hyperbole in the fuure.

Stop pretending.

I have to take issue with your claims of character assassination, though.

Why? Here is your claim:

I care about viable democracies with fair representation and politicians who operate on behalf of the public instead of themselves; it's a shame you don't.

This was in response to me pointing out your TDS.

You have a demonstrable history of glossing over lies and misdeeds from Trump and the Republicans; even now you falsely accuse me of choosing "random" things for you to condemn. If you believe in a fair, functioning democracy, you condemn attempts to undermine that democracy, no matter which party is involved; it's as simple as that.

I could have a demonstrable history of cannibalism. That doesn't make your non-arguments any stronger. This attempt is called "poisoning the well" and these sort of logical fallacies are your bread and butter.

You have a demonstrable history (in this thread) of fleeing to unrelated accusations when you cannot defend your original standpoints. Also known as "whataboutism" or in your specific case TrumpToo™. If there are relevant parts of my posting history that support your choice to bring Trump into a side-conversation about Democrats eroding the constitution, feel free to do so. Otherwise, it's more empty smearing from you.

My statement condemning this behavior can be found on the first page of this thread, but I know reading isn't your strongest suit. Kind of hard to accuse me of glossing over something when the first thing I posted in the thread directly addressed it.

I have stood up for my beliefs. I've provided evidence that Trump and the GOP are eroding the system of government, and I don't think the Democrats should stack the SCOTUS heavily in favour of their own side, either. What I want is a return to an adult, functional US government that respects the rule of law and makes at least a vague attempt to serve the public instead of itself. And the country doesn't have those under Trump and the current Republican party.

You're entitled to your beliefs. You're not entitled to making accusation after accusation when you are unable to prove a counter to what someone else has said, and then to shy away from backing up those accusations as you continue to do.

This is why your cult loses ground by the day. It follows the same pattern as the radical Evangelical Christians of the 80s and 90s who insisted that government was the vehicle for bringing about Christ's kingdom and ushering in peace. If you must resort to accusations instead of supporting your own arguments, you will continue to be outclassed in rational discourse.

No, it's about:
"Politicians blame video games for recent mass shootings."
Who are, unsurprisingly, Republicans.

Aurelian may have been doing whataboutism but he was replying to whataboutism anyway. Republicans blaming video games is what the thread is about. What Democrats will do with the supreme court, how SJWs have "infiltrated" games and what Trump does (unless related to accusing video games which he did do) are not.

Read further back into the thread. The "whataboutism" was a direct reply to a question as to whether the constitution could be subverted in some way, and the poster pointed out that a minority of left-leaning supreme court justices had attempted to do exactly that back in 2008.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

I'm starting to think crazy people will always be crazy and at one point or another, they'll wake up one day and wanna shoot some folks. Whether it be because they think the world is too far gone, because their GF broke up with them, because they've been radicalized... Whatever.

Lost cause trying to fix the problem with them, they're sick enough to give this a crack.

Better to educate and arm everyone else who isn't crazy. Give everyone else a fighting chance when crazy decides to come knocking.

And dont make it easy for them to buy an assault weapon and a bag full of bullets for it. That is also important.

 

[AlexxKidd]

Interesting that the thread on GAF is called "Politicians blame video games" yet everywhere I see this story - including the source used in the OP - it's the more to the point title, "Republicans blame video games."

 

[Geki-D]

Interesting that the thread on GAF is called "Politicians blame video games" yet everywhere I see this story - including the source used in the OP - it's the more to the point title, "Republicans blame video games."

Oof. Can you imagine the triggering if the thread was titled that here?

 

[SALMORE]

They say that because they want an excuse to control it ! That what they did in the early 90s to the Hiphop scene

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Oof. Can you imagine the triggering if the thread was titled that here?

Republicans blame videogames for mass shootings (again)

I kinda agree. Not blaming all video games, but if you are playing video games 10 hours a day with the graphics, violence and realism they have its not good. You also isolate yourself and it isn't going to help with anti-social behavior. It becomes a lot easier to become a "big man" when you...

www.neogaf.com