maybe people are drug dealers, murders, and criminals because of video games. We should have a special service to help people who may be crazy because of gta. (sarcasm)

These people make me want to head butt a kitten.



Atleast everyone knows this guy is conspiracy nut.

What cracks me up is the way these nutjobs twist the events. The Washington Post had the Counterstrike mention in their earliest version of the online story, but pulled that later. Why? There's usually only one reason that a newspaper pulls a juicy tidbit like that: Their source was unreliable. Either it was an outright lie that was discovered later, or just a rumor that they couldn't substantiate... either way, it wasn't some sort of media cover-up, just an editor covering the newspaper's ass from an overzealous reporter.

- - - - -

Menticide. Okaaaaay. Brainwashing by any other name... if that were truly the case, why are there millions of stable, rational adults who played video games as kids (many still do) and never went over the deep end to kill anyone?

@Nekojin


Oh we were all brainwashed and programed. When the signal is finally sent we are going to go batshit loco and start killing the population en mass. Don't you see? Its all a communist invasion, all the game devs are funded by Putinp! We must stop the commies, THE REDS ARE COMING SAVE THE REPUBLIC!!!!!! LAUNCH THE BOMBS!....

Oh sorry I read a full article on the PAC website.

Edit: 'video games' not 'bideo games'

Need an edit button!

@Yuki
I am over 35, and consider myself at least as ideologically unpolluted as your post indicates you are, even if I may also be a little more politically pragmatic. I'll try to forgive your age-ist comment as over-enthusiasm for your larger point.

I think I share the emotions behind your post, but I'm not sure I agree with your solutions. I am not sure it is the place of the ESA or ECA to answer the soapbox rants of every nutjob who complains about games for the free publicity he'll gain. Sometimes I think it might be better overall to ignore such mindless slander, instead of giving it any credibility or publicity by addressing it.

Not to say I don't appreciate Joystiq's coverage, from a gamer's perspective, but even Orland closes with a run-down of mainstream reasons to discredit anything LaRouche promotes.

In any case, I favor the current focus of the ESA on these issues. I'd much rather have them defending the games industry in court, and preventing the implementation of unconstitutional legislation in states like IL, CA, MI, LA, (and soon, NY), then wasting time and clout with insignificant self-promoters like this.

@ Yuki
[i]"And people wonder why I have gotten so Hostile to the industry lately. It’s shit like this, here we have undeniable proof that these people are lying deciveing bastards and yet the ESA, ECA, and other industry groups do NOTHING about it."[/i]

Yuki you do know that the industry is not a single entity right? Really though from what I have seen these guys are hanging themselves without any real help from any of the Industry groups. Also if the Industry groups actually were to attempt to counter such utter nonsense, well that would just [i]prove[/i] them to be true.

I know you'd like to see counter suits, and press responses to some of the utter nonsense put out by anti-game critics. Really though the industry groups, there PR people & lawyers know a lot more about this stuff than any of us. If they aren't responding that is because it's still best to just ignore them, and let their nonsense come out for what it is, nonsense. As long as the court constitutional challenges continue to go in the ESA's favor there is no need to launch a publicity campaign. And considering how bad these bills are written it isn't likely any of them will survive a constitutional challenge.
Building legal precedent is the best means of combating such conspiracy theories. Keep quite and build the legal cases. Eventually politicians get the idea, and stop proposing legislation. Comic books, Music, & the movie industries have all succeeded against this type of onslaught. All of them used similar tactics.
What would really help though is if certain game publishers wouldn't push the envelope to an extreme and then expect the ESA to cover their asses.

Stinking Kevin,
If it were just a "soapbox" (holding a newspaper interview, blathering on their website, or sending emails about their personal, religious, and/or political opinions), I'd agree. But being described as "experts" and being used to give testimony in a formal investigation is another matter altogether. Their misinformation and deceit now become a matter of formal record and used not only in making official determinations of this case, but could then be referred to, not only by media, but by law enforcement officials in later cases.

It creates a ill conceived "profiling" catagory, based solely on misinformation and personal, religious, and/or political agendas and not FACTS about the individual or any other individual involved. Racial profiling, among other groups profiled, have been misused by those who hold their own personal, religious, and/or political agendas. Remember the Utah Mall shooting? Rebecca Walsh's story was right on the money when she pointed out that tragedies seem to draw out the agenda seekers and massacre chasers. But, to date, those agenda seekers and massacre chasers weren't using their claims to affect the investigation. Here, however, in the VTech case, they are.

And, so, yes, I'd say there is no better reason for the ESA/ECA (especially the ECA) to take a few big steps at disspelling the misinformation and deceit that has been put forth by this group.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

I totally agree with Nightwing. This is the responsibility of the ESA and the ECA to respond to such claims. They don't have to respond to every Thompson interview or essay by LaRouche, but when these groups use their agenda to sway an investigation of a homicide, then it is the ESA and ECA's responsibility to counter those claims.

We should not sit idly by while such events happen. Fighting court battles may give us precedence but does nothing to better our image. We need to activly fight these from the beginning not when it gets out of hand.

Which is easier to fight, a smoldering cigirette butt or a raging forest fire?

There's a cult for every sucker in the world. I wonder how such a personality cult could survive in this time of age? And I do wonder how they get their info so badly and so one-sided? Here's a solution, teach our kids not to follow those nut jobs.

Whoops, I meant to say "the military uses video games as murder simulators", sorry. They actually do have some simulation for some things, but not anything dedicated like he claims.

Someday, someone is going to sue such group for slander. I hope I will be that one.

Proceeds of that trial should go towards good causes, like Childs Play.

@gs2005

I would also add that if he talked his theories to any academic psychologists, they would find it rubbish with plenty of theoretical and empirical holes.

add: Also take note of who is hosting the article. This isn't SlashDot, JoyStiq, or a blog - this is PBS, a company that prides itself on delivering spin-free fact (or as close to spin-free as is humanly possible, anyway).

I have to agree with Yuki and Nightwing as well. The ESA's 'hands off' approach is getting annoying seeing as how more and more of these nutjobs keep getting invited to these summits, hearings, and other official events. By keeping their hands off of these folks and not fighting back, they are letting them be the ONLY voice in the room. When it’s the only voice in the room it’s hard to get people to ignore it.

It wouldn't bother be nearly as bad if there were industry professionals who were out there giving counterpoint, but that’s simply not happening. These people are basically getting free reign out of the media and politicians to push whatever agenda they want to limit our rights in this country. It’s absolutely appalling.

What needs to happen is for the industry to not just "respond" to these people, but to OFFICIALLY DISCREDIT them. They need to show people and politicians just how crazy these people are and show them that they are literally spouting LIES. Show politicians and others that to use these people to testify in a public or formal setting literally shows a lapse in judgment on their part and can seriously damage their own reputation.

Let these people be shown for what they are. Fearmongering, lying, deceitful swine who care nothing for the issue but only for their own misguided crusade.

@Otaku-Man

Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith
The Emperor: [to the Senate] In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years..

[Senate fills with enormous applause]

Padmé: [to Bail Organa] So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

@Nightwing2K
Maybe I am missing something. Were Phau or Mourino invited speakers, or did they just show up to comment in the public remarks part of the program? Unless they were invited, I don't see how the LaRouche committee is afforded any substantial "expert" status by making unsolicited remarks to the Virginia Tech Review Panel during the public commentary portion of the two meetings.

http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/05/11/lpaccalls_ban....

The Review Panel's website provides for comments and criticisms from the online public, so maybe we all can be an experts too, if we like?

http://www.vtreviewpanel.org/index.html

I apologize if I sound flippant, and for what it's worth, wacko anti-game propaganda really gets under my skin too. There's probably more to this story I don't know about, and I welcome and correction or insight you could offer me.

But for now I'll stand by my opinion that the ESA or ECA taking the time to seriously answer nutjob testimony like this would do little to further diminish its already deficient credibility, and possibly give it more publicity than it deserves. I believe the resources of these organizations are better spent in more mainstream and legally relevant arenas.

@Yuki
How is discrimination against someone based on his age a valid "point of order"? Don't all those politicians and authority figures also "tend" to be white, heterosexual males? Why not also call for all future politicians to be lesbians of minority descent?

In your first post, I took your comment as a misguided rehash of a Nixon-era joke. I find it disappointingly hypocritical that you'd seriously defend such a ridiculous generalization, when anti-game activists use the exact same appearance of "patterns," instead of qualified facts or individual accountability, to defend their positions of censorship and repression.

Or maybe you're still joking, in which case I humbly apologize for taking you seriously.

Stinking Kevin,
I checked the Review Panel's web page, which you also posted, but it's not quite clear when compared to the original article ( http://gamepolitics.com/2007/05/20/larouche-staffer-likens-violent-games... )

From the article:
"That suggestion was made recently to the Virginia Tech Review Panel, an elite commission appointed by Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine to study the April 16th school shooting rampage committed by madman Cho Seung-Hui.

The panel, composed of a variety of experts and specialists as well as former Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, held its first public meeting in Richmond on May 10th. Among those testifying was Don Phau, a member of former fringe presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche’s political action committee."

"testifying" implies something more... binding (?) than "commenting" or "offering an opinion".
But the Panel's website doesn't have the testimony or Documents of anyone other than the President of Virginia Tech.

It's not quite clear to me just what the purpose of this panel really is. It clearly implies an "investigation". Yet, it also appears that just anyone can put forth their opinions at this Review Panel.

The problem I have with this is the use of the word "investigation". If there is actual work going on here in trying to discover the FACTS of what may have happened, then those giving "testimony" are doing more than sounding off and their comments are taken far more seriously than just an average citizen. In which case, yes, valid, strong, serious counterarguments need to be made. Not to mention limiting who can give testimony.

But if this is nothing more than a Public Forum or Town Hall Meeting where people can express whatever goofballish opinion they want, then, no, no official counterargument could be made. Individuals could make counterarguments, but an organized counterargument no. BUT, the Panel would and should also make it clear that these Meetings have absolutely nothing to do with a valid investigation and that comments and opinions made by the public are not true "testimony" that will be used in considering whys and wherefores of what actually did happen that day. (Which as I've said before elsewhere we shall never know everything because the only person who did know everything about how and why is dead. And that was Cho himself.)

But right now, the "testimony" being given is being protrayed as something more than just people "getting things off their chest", as it were.

And I'm not complaining about your comments. I just have a tendancy to narrow things down. Sometimes, it's a bad habit. :)

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Guys, it's LAROUCHE. Having them speak out against us is probably the best thing that could happen to the video game industry.

While I try in general not to complain too much about people complaining about my complaints anyway, but I don't ever take your comments on this board as less than sincere. I always like to read what you have to say here. Narrowing down is almost always good, I think.

I too am unclear under what pretense the LaRouche committee "testimony" was given. I must admit I am only assuming it was unsolicited, and given during the public commentary part of the program. I wasn't there for either meeting, and didn't have a chance to watch on C-SPAN.

I think there's at least one point I haven't done such a good job at expressing so far here. As Kyle Orland's Joystiq article suggests, LaRouche might be a beneficial political adversary to have.

There are lots of people in the 'mainstream' (including many of those 'clueless but influential white males over 50') who know about LaRouche. They may not know anything about video games, but they do know the LaRouche committee's reputation for promoting irrational theory and extremist policy.

For many in the mainstream, I think any LaRouche association automatically carries an implication that is more like the opposite of "expert testimony." So my initial thought was, as anti-anti-game activists, why mess with a boon like that?

Best way to respond to any of the LaRouche drones is with a simple question: "Is the Queen of England still selling drugs?"

fuck these nutcases, no one outside their movement takes them seriously anyway. i dont even think thompson does.

They have less credibility than Jack Thompson!
And that's saying something!

Wow, I'm surprised none of those nutjobs have yet showed up here to call us impotent or to defend their "beliefs"

I think you all miss the point. No matter how crack-pot any theory is, there are those who will believe it, or take bits and pieces and believe it. Mostly because no one is openly challenging it at this point.

I think we take for granted that its common knowledge that LaRouche is a nutcase. Even if the industry just has someone standing next to him to look at the Committee and shrug in like -well, what do you want me to say to that-, I think it would benefit us.

And plus, no harm can come from the industry just having a presence there, LaRouche / Thompson being present or not. If it's part of the industry that will be debated and contended, then let us at least be there and show some concern over the issue, instead of just ignoring it and pretending it wont effect us.

One question. Where the hell are the people voicing our opinions? Are they not getting invited to these hearings? Is the ESA not taking this garbage seriously?

Well, in many ways, believe it or not, it's helping, the Anti-Game bandwagon is starting to resemble a clown-car, filled with misfits, spinning round in circles and making far more noise than progress.

Duh, complete world domination. Imagine millions of 17 year old soldiers going on complete rampages. There is a good chance the Queen of England is on it, too. The videogame industry is taking over the world for the British Empire.

@Serenity
I disagree -- I think serious harm could from sending an ESA rep to those hearings, because that could be taken as a tacit acknowledgment that games may have had something to do with the massacre after all. According to all documentation I've found, the panel has no specific interest in video games or media politics. The LaRouche propagandists, as they themselves boast, are the only ones contending or debating the influence of games at these hearings, and I do not believe anyone on the panel asked for their opinions in the first place.

@Vinzent
Perhaps that it is "garbage" is exactly the reason it's NOT being taken seriously by the ESA.

@Stinking Kevin

Whether they respond at the hearing is not the point. The fact that they have made no effort to say anything is what is wrong. The ESA should do something to inform the panelists that LaRouche have no valid points and that their arguments are misleading.

I don't think we need an ESA representative, just send any regular Joe to laugh at their beliefs. It'd say something as to how important their radical ideas are to the commonwealth of society.

@Andrew Eisen:

Just for fun let’s say that video games are addictive, do turn kids into killers, and game companies are developing and selling these games with the specific intent to cause children to kill other people.

The question remains: Why the hell would they do that? What could possibly be their motivation for doing so? What’s in it for them?

World domination. They are making armies of pre-programmed killing machines to overthrow the free world. Didn't you miss the memo?

LaRoucheYouthMember,

I admit, I haven’t visited the LaRouche webpage. All I’ve heard are the testimonies by Phau and Mourino. Frankly, I haven’t been impressed by the statements of either. Both demonstrate a severe misunderstanding of video games and the industry. Additionally, both seem to be behind ineffective (not to mention unconstitutional) solutions to nonexistent problems.

“It would be far more interesting here to deal with the merits of his actual arguments on the subject of video game violence.”

I agree but thus far I’ve seen no arguments with merit. Just the typical misinformed, stereotyping blather. Maybe Phau and Mourino aren’t doing the LaRouche group due service?


Andrew Eisen

So much for serious debate. Why do people not refute this guy? Fact is that Cho became psychotic, he learned to fire guns, learned to be a killer and the evidence all points towards these games. Now while I am happy to go through the evidence, I would like people to address what they have read, and also try to refute it for themselves, then and only then write a reply.

Keep your keyboards clean guys.

@LaRoucheYouthMember
"Often, the easiest way to obscure an issue is to ignore or distort the real terms of discussion."

The poeple who speak for your group, such as Phau and Mourino, should practice what you preach. So far, both of them in their testimonies have both showed a great amount of ignorance, twisted and exagerated facts, and outright made stuff up in order to make their points.

For instance in this article... You member talks about a media blackout to cover up Cho's video game playing habits. This statement is utterly ridiculous. First off, not once in the past has the media ever covered up video game involvement, in fact, they have always done the opposite, they exploit the video game involvemnt because it makes good for sensastional news; The washington post, which i believe is more of a conservative news outlit, in particualr has never held back on reporting about video games. why would they suddenly start covering it up now. Futharmore, poeple like Jack Thompson, Dave Grossman, and Dr.Phill have all managed to speak out against games in reguards to V-tech, all during this suposed media Blackout (even though they have no evidence to back up their claims that Cho had any recent game involvement)...

The media isn't covering up anything, they merely reporting what is relevent. Why did the Washington Post edit their article? because they realized that the infromation they got was not relevent to V-tech. The washington post found out that Cho played counterstrike back when he was in high school; however that was 5 years ago... i'd also liek to poitn out that when talking about Cho, poeple from his past mention ihs hobby of often playing basketball outside much more than his video game habits (leads me to think that even though he played them from time to tiem, he wasn't much of a gamer)... There is also the FACT that cho's roomate in college has stated that Cho did NOT play video games; he spent most of his time writing and occassionally watching Wrestling and game shows. In addition, the police reports mention absolutly nothing about Cho owning any video games. All evidence points to that Cho stopped playing video games after leaving for college. The washington Post reliazed this and so edited the article because playing video games is only relevent if it's is recent. This is also why the rest of the media has not been talking about Cho's video game habits, because there is NO evidence that he had any current video game habits. He left his game playing behind.

So far, those who have spokenout in the name of your organization have shown themselves to be completly bias is this matter, not willing to considering the agruements for video games and actively, misquote and exagerate information in order to make things seem FAR worse then they are. They love to point out the poeple who speak out against violent video games, but do not pay any attention to those who speak in favor of them(experts who are not in the video game buisness, but researchers in their own right), Many of us has had plenty of time to read both sides of the argument. Many things don't makes sense and other things do. The anti game studies in particualr are either flawed, or have their findings exagerated... Heh, one vidoe game study was applied to the holy bible, and the study came out with similar results... now, either the holy bible is just as bad as video games, both studies are not as bad as some poeple like to make them seem, or both studies are just plain flawed (i go with one of the latter two)...

Those who speak out in the name of your group have shown themselves as the type of poeple who would misquote, misinform, make up conspricay theories on to make their point (media blackout...) and outright lie... Last i checked, when their really is a problem that needs to be solved, such tactics are not nessasary, as their would be more then enough evidence to prove their claims... There's a reaosn why there are so-many poeple speak out against your group

The reason I get annoyed is because I feel like I'm doing these people's thinking for them. I have better things to do with my life than try to offset some of the ignorance from people who obviously haven't spent 5 minutes researching the very subject they are making accusations about.

I always find it funny how these people arrive on here say 'How come you don't debate our really poor and ill-informed statements with consideration for the idea they might be true?' and then the moment we start pointing out why we don't consider them to be true, we get answered by silence... it's very telling.

@Kevin

I guess I didn't explain what I meant, so I don't mind if it seemed to you that ti was rather rude.

For clarification, What I meant was this, I think one of the major problems that currently exsists in government is that it's age discrimnatory already. It's well documented that only people over a certain age can run for office, and a result, only older, and as you put it, in many cases White, Straight males wind up in office.

I'm not so much upset about them being old, what I Loathe is the lack of balance thats been created as a result. Part of the problem I think is that there to many old Foagies in office and theres no younger members to balance them out.

Thats just my opinion, but the last 20 years seem to indicated that I'm not far of the mark given some of th stupidity the last generation has led us into eh, speciall the clinton/bush years.

Sorry if that comes out wrong, but I just think it's bad for a country that is so diverse in age, race, and sexual orintation to have such a like of power in it's government.

@GoodRobotUs

indeed... is very rare for me to talk like that, but the thigns that need to be said or so damn obvious that you'd have to be bling not to see them. You can very easily tell when poeple are being ignorant and only listening to one side f the arguement. One of the good things about this site is that, even if it has some bias towards video games, it still reports BOTH sides of the arguement, and links the orginal source material, thus allowing us to make a complete and informed decision... I mean, looking at most of the anti-game sites, you can see them reporting mostly on the anti-game information and don't seem to mention much of antyhing that challenges them... it's completely one sided

@HandofCrom

Exactly one of the things i've been saying... If there truely was a serious problem being caused by something, and something really did need to be done about it, then there would be more then enough concrete facts to prove it... Poeple would not need to resort to using misquotes, exagerations and bold assumptions to make their claim... and as courts have found when rulling on game laws, the evidence behind antigamers is just plain weak... if evidcne was as strong and as horrible as they say it is, they would have probably have what they needed to make violent games unprotected speech; but no, evidence is weak... the evidnce just doesn't add up to what they claim.

not many poeple would go as far to say the violent games have no effect on people (afterall, everything has some effect on poeple)... but it's certainly not nearly as horrible as most anti game poeple like to think...

I still think it's rather funny that Mourino, of all the games he could have singled out as being 'killing simulators' had to decide to attack one that involved shooting Nazis.....

(to clarify that last post, I mean, literally, mentions of "iD software", "John Carmack", "Todd Hollenshead", etc... maybe they think that lucifer himself is behind these games?)

@ LArouche youth

Oh Would you shut up already. We've been over this, we debunked your garbage theories time and again. Beat it already, were tied of having to to debunk the same bullshit conspiracy theory over and over.