In Parliament, Suggestion of “Global Regulatory Future” For Video Games

In Parliament yesterday, longtime video game industry critic Keith Vaz (Labour) quizzed Siôn Simon (left), Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport about PEGI ratings and the controversial Japanese game RapeLay.

Conservative Mark Field jumped in on the topic, appearing to suggest the pursuit of a global content rating system for video games. Surprisingly, Simon said that the UK’s recent adoption of the European PEGI system was viewed by the Gordon Brown government as "the building block to moving towards a global regulatory future."

The conversation went something like this:

Keith Vaz: What recent discussions has [Simon] had with pan-European game information on the age classification of video games?

Siôn Simon:
I have spoken to the Video Standards Council—the current UK agents for the PEGI system—about the classification of video games and have another meeting scheduled with it very soon. I have also had discussions with the British Board of Film Classification. Both organisations are working hard to ensure the success of the new system.

Keith Vaz:
I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome the steps that the Government are taking on this issue. However, it is still a matter of concern that a game such as "RapeLay", which shows extreme violence against women, can be downloaded from the internet. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that such games are not accessed from the internet, so that children and young people are properly protected?

Siôn Simon: We should be clear that [RapeLay] was not classified, but was briefly available on Amazon and then was banned. The point that my right hon. Friend is making is about games that, like other brutal, unpleasant, illegal content, can be available on the internet. All steps that apply to any other content on the internet will apply to games. Specifically, as part of the Byron review we set up the UK Council for Child Internet Safety to work with content providers, internet service providers and all aspects of Government to make sure that such content cannot be accessed, particularly by children.

Mark Field: The Minister will know that Britain is a great leader in video and computer games, and while I take on board many of the concerns expressed by Keith Vaz, will the Minister recognise that this is a global industry, not simply a European one, and in so far as we are going to have the safeguards to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, we will clearly also need to have global regulation along those lines?

Siôn Simon: The system of regulation for which we have opted—the PEGI system—is pan-European, and as such, we see it as the building block to moving towards a global regulatory future. The key principle is that the markings on games should make it clear to parents which games are suitable for adults and which are suitable and unsuitable for children and young children. Adults should be allowed to access adult content; children most certainly should not.

GP: Readers, what do you think of the idea of a global content rating system? Is it even possible? If so, is it desirable?

Source: They Work For You

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    illspirit says:

    Readers, what do you think of the idea of a global content rating system?

    If it’s a voluntary ESRB/PEGI-esque thing, then, sure. Granted, it would be a bit silly since every country has different standards, but, yea. If, however, the Under-Secretary wants some sort of international law, well, he can regulate my games after he pries the rifle from my cold dead hands and stuff.

    Speaking of which, there really should be a game about the Battle at Lexington Green..

  2. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Meh goverments can buy them out rather easily…..that or take away thier ablity to rate products by making thier own thing that underminds the current boards.


    I am a criminal because I purchase media,I am a criminal because I use media, I am a criminal because I chose to own media..We shall remain criminals until Corporate stay’s outside our bedrooms..

  3. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    It could work but there would be so much "could" involved it would quickly implode on itself.

    One could use a measuring stick that compares the main world regions to each other then come up with a nudity is not as bad standard.

    Then basically things with violence to non humans is teen level or lower where as to humans is adult level, nudity would not be as much of an issue as sexuality, basically nudity= teen nudity done in any kind of love scene = adult.

    Teen starts as low as 12,adult as low as 17,  you can toss in a porn level for 18+ or whatever the porn laws decitact consumption can begins at.

    Now so what if you have a standard  your still going to have to allow regions to bumb it up or lower to their standards, its either they get to dictate to the shops what rating sticker goes on stuff or they get to blacklist a game from their region.  I think having the ability to re rate it  would create a situation where the local populaces would laugh their politicians out of office.

    Still humanity is still to immature for world government…much less world ratings…


    I am a criminal because I purchase media,I am a criminal because I use media, I am a criminal because I chose to own media..We shall remain criminals until Corporate stay’s outside our bedrooms..

  4. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    You know they would, because nobody would have any oversight over them.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  5. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Agreed, on every point.  I have been very critical of President Obama for some time, but have never suggested the idea that he has no right to be President.  He won.  I’m okay with that.  Just don’t change the country for the worst.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  6. 0
    SounDemon says:

    I never want to hear about RapeLay again. EVER.

    I’m sick of hearing the name, I’m sick of the concept, I’m sick of the attention given to it, I don’t care if the game depicts pandas brutalized with a titanium fun noodle; I JUST NEVER WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT EVER AGAIN.

  7. 0
    BearDogg-X says:

    As many have said, a "global rating system" is not happening at all with too many cultural differences between the various countries of the world.

    Hell, here in the U.S., talk of a "universal rating system" for games, movies, TV, and music(which some of these countries have) is automatically null and void because the various rating systems are copyrighted by their respective industries.

    As far as Keith Vaz-gina goes, he’s a liar and a fraud. Enough said.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.

    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  8. 0
    Ganjookie says:

    Parents already ignore the ESRb that has been in place for quite awhile.  What makes these chaps think that a global rating system will change anything?


    As an adult, as long as "I" can buy and play what "I" want, I don’t really care about a rating system…localized or global.


    Trevor Gray

  9. 0
    Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    That´s pretty much the answer about this thread. Too many social-cultural issues to claim for a "global system".

    The sad part is that is not about needs of the people, that I can agree are not the same. This is motivated by an illusory sense of control and power coated with political correctness bias. They hate videogames, so they´ll try to ban them at any cost.

    In top of that, they believe they can impose their views easy. They don´t take in count other opinions and they seem to ignore that there are many cultures even in their own territories that are not agree with them in many stances, not only games.

    I really hope this explodes in their face someday. I think many people is still waiting for Keith Vaz being kicked from politics for being a corrupt hypocrite.

    The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship):

  10. 0
    Icehawk says:

    I am hesitant (at best) at the idea of putting that much power into a "world" org.  Who exactly would they answer to?  How would they handle it if country "A" did not like a part (the recent religious idiocy comes to mind) but country "B" was ok with the thing.  What system of grading would they use etc etc.  

    Have to wonder how much pull say Petrodollars would have on such a system if it existed.   Bad idea methinks. 

  11. 0
    Kajex says:

    You could have just said "Germany" and left it at that. If their tight-ass whining were to be considered in every part of the globe as part of a global ratings system, we’d have lame as hell games with no violence, or they’d be bitching because we’re not listening to them and rating the games in a fashion that THEY think is wrong. The moment somebody uses their index finger to beckon to the player is the moment Sri Lankan gamers are shocked because it’s construed as an obscene gesture.

    Then you’d have national worries- rating games "incorrectly" according to some nations because they portray the nation negatively. Too much trouble.

  12. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    Now that I think about it, I remember reading about the days before MPAA ratings.


    Before the ratings system was implemented, indivisual states ad neven towns had their own ratings boards, making marketing movies nationally pretty much impossible. This would essentially cause the same problem. Due to different standards, different local ratings boards would form cuasing huge problems for developers and publishers alike.

  13. 0
    Wormdundee says:

    Not to digress too much, but the fact that they had to change the color is stupid. Political correctness is one of the scourges of society.

    People get offended far too easily. 

  14. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     No one said Obama shouldn’t be president.  He won by not only the majority of people but by the electoral college.  By every right he should be the president of the United States.  However, he is quite socialist in many of his beliefs.

  15. 0
    V4nI114 Ic3 says:

    i think it is a bad idea and extremely out of the realm of possibility.

    what is socially acceptible in all contries of the world varies greatly, and if a global ratings system is enforced it would mean that gamers in one geographic who are accustomed to less censored games would begin to have stricter censorship rules applied to them, which would cause severe criticism of a new global system; or, on the same side of the coin, gamers who are accustomed to more censored games would be given access to less censored games, which we all know will cause all kinds of firestorms.

    not only that, but there would be a battle that rages on for god knows how long before a ratings system is even established, because all of the various countries would have proponents saying that "this is unacceptable, it cannot be allowed in a video game," while at the same time there would be people arguing that one thing or another isnt deserving of this rating or that.

    for better or worse, i think it is better to maintain the status quo.


  16. 0
    thefremen says:

    When the comments on gp didn’t sound the same as the comments on Kotaku, Joystiq, Youtube and /b/? I think that may have been as far back as the LJ days…


    I agree with the people who’ve said the obvious: even amongst western cultures there are just too many differences to have a single rating entity. As for the people saying "Obama shouldn’t be president and is socialist" and "desu desu desu 1m get" I say: please leave. 

  17. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

    There’s also the fact that it wasn’t a downloadable game, but rather a hard copy bought off of Amazon, which means that hon. Minister Vaz is full of shit, has his facts totally wrong, and not so honorable.

    Then there’s the fact that even if it was downloadable, that’s outside of the realms of the PGEI anyways, which makes bringing up this example of game ratings is a total waste of time. 

  18. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    Three words. Not gonna happen.

    Far too many cultural differences. In one country homosexuality may be accepted, while in another even hinting at it means a prison sentence.

    Hell, in Germany zombie blood had to be turned green,, and in Australia games are outright banned more commonly than necessary. And there are two countries that won’t even discuss this, Australia as one of their AGs won’t even discuss the possiblity ot letting certain games be sold in the country, and Germany as they are VERY intent on making sure people pretend parts of their history never happened.


    And trying to impose othis on the rest of the planet. How many other people, people i nthe UK included, think only Americans d othat again?

  19. 0
    Bigman-K says:

    If there is a global wide government in the future i’d personally prefer global wide Free Speech (sort of like a global First Amendment) with no restrictions and censorship of media whatsoever. Leave it up to individuals to decide what they wish to watch, play, read or listen to and the sole responsibility of the parents to keep their children away from media THEY find inappropriate or unsuitable for them. The less the government gets involved in our lives as long as our actions aren’t hurting anybody else or taking/destroying their property the better.

     "No law means no law" – Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

  20. 0
    Arell says:

    As many people have pointed out, cultural differences make it a bad idea.  Sure, every now and then we have an arguement about who’s "right" in the great "violence vs. sex debate" (US or EU), but at the end of the day there is no "right" answer.  Cultures in different countries have evolved differently, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that.

    But it also means that a ratings system for North America would be ill fitting for the gamers of Europe.  The ESRB mirrors our society’s ideas of child protection.  Likewise, the PEGI probably wouldn’t be suited for a US audience, either, as it reflects European standards of "decency." (except Germany, those poor gamers)  Now, maybe this will someday change and the entire world will have the same basic ideas on everything.  I would actually lament the loss of diversity, but should that day come, a global ratings system would amke sense.

    Of course, we Americans would have nothing major to fear from such a ratings system.  While it’s plausable to use the same system, it doesn’t mean that European style bannings and laws would follow.  Our Constitutionally protected free speech (something most other countries don’t have hard-coded into thier legal system like we do) would mean that they still couldn’t ban games or legally stop stores from selling Mature-equivalent to minors, no matter if it’s the ESRB or the PEGI or anything else.

  21. 0
    Neeneko says:

    Sadly, this is a general problem.

    There is more political captial to be gained by implementing new laws (with your name and face on them) then there is in properly enforcing old laws.

    There is a public perception that if a problem persists, it must mean new laws are needed.  Implementing new laws is easier and less painful to the public then more pedestrian things like giving the police (or social services, etc) enough funding to actually enforce existing laws.

  22. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    Similar ideas were suggested on University Campus’ in the UK after those students were arrested on Terrorist charges, and there was an outcry, most Universities run their own firewalls anyway, but they certainly weren’t prepared to accept the concept of a Government-moderated one.

  23. 0
    NovaBlack says:

     However, it is still a matter of concern that a game such as "RapeLay", which shows extreme violence against women, can be downloaded from the internet

    Um.. yeah.. ILLEGALLY.

    So .. its a crime then isnt it Mr Vaz.


    Problem solved. God i hate him so much.


  24. 0
    Krono says:

    GP: Readers, what do you think of the idea of a global content rating system? Is it even possible? If so, is it desirable?

    Not possible. Too many conflicting standards and interests to do it.


  25. 0
    Drazgal says:

    Well we are the 4th largest producer of video games behind USA, Japan and Canada, soon to drop to 5th when South Korea take over us.

    But if it makes you feel better I’m sorry we are imposing our games on you!

  26. 0
    Shoehorn Oplenty says:

    There isn’t even a global consensus on what age people are allowed have sex, never mind seeing naughty things in games.

    There are too many cultural differences between all of the countries in the world for there to be any kind of consensus on something like entertainment ratings. What is tame in one country will be seen as offensive or shocking in another. Even if it’s not mature content, massive cultural differences exist about all manner of things. Take colours. The English football team had to change from their traditional white strip to another colour when they played in Japan because in their culture, white is the colour associated with death and mourning.

    When something so simple can mean a change like that, how can they expect a global agreement on the age appropriateness of anything in the massive scope of content video games cover.

  27. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    They’d face an awful lot more trouble getting something like that imposed in the UK to be honest, Australia only got away with it by flying under the radar a lot of the time, any UK Government trying to do something like that would be in the centre of an Academic shitstorm of epic proportions.

  28. 0
    killatia says:

    GP: Readers, what do you think of the idea of a global content rating system? Is it even possible? If so, is it desirable?

    I don;t think it will happen for the next few decades. Many countries has different rules with regards to video games and such leave too much for a global aiting system to handle.

  29. 0
    nighstalker160 says:

    It would be an interesting attempt at true international law in a sense. But there’s simply too much varying in what is considered culturally acceptable. For example:

    Australia with its no 18+ rating

    The U.S. were the mention of the word Penis earns you an instant 17+

    Germany with its massive restrictions on anything Nazi related

    and then Japan where massive tentacle monsters viciously raping fourteen year old girls is the #1 rated Saturday morning cartoon (I kid, I kid)

    Just too much varying to get global uniformity

  30. 0
    Zerodash says:

    Sounds like the beginnings of a move to bring internet filtering to the UK.  After all, think about the children and keeping Rapelay away from their internets.

  31. 0
    Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    The Minister will know that Britain is a great leader in video and computer games…

    Where the fuck they get that? Those assholes really believe they will impose their views all over the world (but sure, they will get along with australians and germans). Delusional idiotic morons.

    The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship):

  32. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    Totally and completely against the concept of a Global rating system, there’s no system in the world that could possibly express the vast difference in what is culturally and locally acceptable in content.

    As for Vaz, find something important to complain about, you, or your peers, aren’t in very good standing with the British public right now, something to do with you conning us for the sake of your own pockets, I’d strongly suggest you start acting as though you are representing the public and not your own personal crusades with your not inconsiderable wages.

  33. 0
    Fedule mk II says:

    In theory, the idea of any kind of global community is brilliant, and this is no exception. How many headaches must already be caused by having to have every game and every bit of DLC for a game indivudually rated in each territory? And lord knows German gamers would welcome something like this.

    Problem is, of course, that by its very nature, this would require a lot of people to rewrite a lot of laws from scratch. *sigh*.

  34. 0
    Chuma says:

    The BBFC isn’t out, it continues to rate games.  Also BBFC is independant as would be PEGI, however PEGI would have to adhere to any guidelines laid out by law just as BBFC had to.

  35. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     Hey, UK showed a progression.  Sometimes they don’t always get it right on the first or second try.  They realized that the BBFC wasn’t good, so they changed.  When they realize the PEGI sucks, they’ll hopefully switch again.

  36. 0
    Wormdundee says:

    From what I understand the PEGI rates the games and submits their ratings to a government body (the VSC). The VSC can change the rating or completely ban the game if they should so choose.

    Feel free to correct me.

  37. 0
    lizardinmycoffee says:

    Forgive my ignorance on the situation, but now that the BBFC is out and PEGI is in, is the PEGI a private entity like the ESRB or is the PEGI now under government control like the BBFC? I’m just curious.

  38. 0
    State says:

    Yes we got rid of the "broken" BBFC to replace it with PEGI, the organisation that believes Mass Effect is a pornographic game and has consistently overrated games in comparison to organisations such as the BBFC, whilst as the same time giving additional powers to the VSC to ban any game that it wants to regardless of rating by PEGI. Yes we’re in a much better place now.

  39. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

    Which is a good one on the UK.  The BBFC was broken, it took it’s powers too far, got beat down by the courts, and now a different system is used.  It’s a very good process, and I fully support it.  I was simply making the point that the BBFC was broken. 

  40. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    Well, there will always be confontation between people’s opinion of what is acceptable or not, and let’s face it, if ever there was stuff that was going to be considered borderline, it’s games like Manhunt 2.

    Now, I’ll admit, that’s as much to do with the public perception of the medium as with the content of the game, if Manhunt had been a movie, it would not have been banned, and it’s that stereotype we all have to work against, but the simple fact that the British courts saw that, and agreed with it is, at the very least, extremely hopeful.

    The UK courts aren’t as rooted in precedent as the US ones, but it does still mean that the BBFC, had they continued to rate games, would have had to adjust their rating procedures to account for that loss, because if it happens too often, they get asked some very awkward questions by some very public figures, and discrimination is a big deal in the UK.

  41. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     I would argue that the system is broken in the UK simply because it was banned in the first place.  Props on fixing that mistake, btw, but that doesn’t change the fact that the mistake was made, and can be made again.

    To clarify this point, any ban, be it short term or indefinite, by a government body on a form of speech, be it video games, books, movies, television, comic books, public speech, radio, and any other form of expression, is horrendously, and morally wrong.

  42. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    It was banned, appealed and un-banned, I’m still amazed that this is used as an example that the system is broken in some way, I can’t think of any other country that would reverse a ban like that in the current political climate.

  43. 0
    lizardinmycoffee says:

    But wasn’t Manhunt 2 banned in the UK after it was refused classification by the BBFC? Or did they repeal that ban and I just completely missed the boat on that news?

    Plus, didn’t the Manchester cathedral raise a big stink about Resistance: Fall of Man after they used "images" of a cathedral…although I guess that’s more the religion than the government.

  44. 0
    Karsten Aaen says:

    I don’t think this is a very good idea; the assessment PEGI uses to rate the games clearly states that ‘a bum (bottom), boob (breast) or the showing og full frontal nudity is not enough to get the game a description of ‘sexual content’ or the icon for that this game have sex in it.’

    The ESRB (but possiby not all Americans) sees this differently.

    For some odd reason certain words in a game will automatically get the game a 16+ or 18+ rating.
    At least in the PEGI system; blasphemy will also get the game, in the PEGI, system 16+ or 18+ rating for some odd reason.

    And Germany has its own rating system.


    In short:
    People’s cultures are very different around the globe, it wouldn’t be constructive to do a global rating system or have it…




  45. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    You ask too much, asking Obama to stop wasting tax money.  Get ready for Stimulus Redeux.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  46. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    ‘If Obama wants to change things let him do it, he can’t make it worse than Bush already did.’

    Bullshit.  Should we let him implement all his anti-gun policies too?  How about we have him sign all those limpwristed UN treaties that would take away the rights of the individual American.

    No, if you want to be apathetic, you can go for it.  I’ll keep my rights, and Obama can keep his change, and hopefully he can stop wasting our tax money.

  47. 0
    Glasofruix says:

    Well, my whole point is:

    Socialism is not communism, we have a clear distinction despite what you’re saying, it’s more like social capitalism from our point of view.

    Socialism is not evil

    Socialism doesn’t eat babies, club seals or listen to Jonas brothers

    Socialism is not Luke’s father

    If Obama wants to change things let him do it, he can’t make it worse than Bush already did.

    Case closed.

  48. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    I don’t know if he lied in Sicko, but he did elude that Cuba was a better nation than the US because of their nationalized health care.  Apparently, killing people that don’t believe in Communist rule and all of the people that make boats out of garbage to move to Miami don’t really matter.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  49. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I pay, at most, 1/100th the cost of any procedure, treatment, or medicine I need.  So, in order for me to spend as much as you do every month, I would need to go to the hospital for something worth 60,000 dollars EVERY FUCKING MONTH.

  50. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     Someone made fun of socialism.  This one guy WARGARBL’d about it.  We said, "no, actually. your facts are wrong."  he continued to WARGARBL, and we continued to say "no, actually.  your facts are wrong."  If you don’t want to participate in this conversation, there are many comments farther down that are more on topic.

  51. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     No, I probably couldn’t.  And you know what?  I probably shouldn’t either.  

    If the guy really does make 10x my salary, then he deserves the best treatment he can get.  Forcing him to pay 30% of his paycheck for the same service that I pay 30% for (or, him pay 10x what I pay for the exact same service, which is what it comes down to) doesn’t sound all that fair or right to me.  The guy has the money, and most of the time the guy deserves the money cause he’s worked hard to get it.  So if he can afford a better health insurance, he should get it.  Meanwhile, I’ll pay for the insurance I can get, and while it won’t have as many bells or whistles as the other guys, I certainly won’t be worse off for it.

  52. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     and AL paying $75 for his own self sounds like a fair deal as well.  You’re trying to separate your own system from the american one, trying to claim yours is practically a gift from God while the american version is nothing but utter crap where 50% of the people who go into the hospital die.  But guess what?  They’re both pretty damn good, and they both have their ups and their downs.  You like your ups, and I like mine.  What’s so damn hard to get there?

  53. 0
    Glasofruix says:

    Yes it sounds like it, but aren’t there different prices for different services? Can you afford the same insurance as the guy who earns ten times more than you?

  54. 0
    Adamas Draconis says:

    Ok. Hw the HELL did we go from eurpoean regulation to american health care and socialism? GET ON TOPIC PEOPLE!

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  55. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     And you know what this system sounds like?  It sounds just like an american health insurance system, but instead of it getting taken directly out of your paycheck, you get to decide who covers your healthcare and choose the best for your money.  Most will provide the exact same service as you stated above.  Some better, some worse.  Hell, you can even decide to have no insurance, and instead use that money on whatever suits your fancy.  After all, it’s not morally right to tell a person what they have to do with their own money.  In the end, americans sacrifice a portion of their salary by choosing and paying directly for their own health insurance, and they don’t have to worry about their health.

    As for that last paragraph, that has nothing to do with the conversation.  And again, it’s false as well.  All that stuff isn’t free.  You’re paying it with your taxes.  The fact that you don’t actively pay doesn’t change the fact that you’re paying for it all.  

    As for the telling the local politician anything…do you really think it’s different in America?  There were entire news sites both on tv and on the internet that were devoted to doing nothing else than calling GW Bush an idiot.  Do you really think this is some kind of a police state that will throw you in prison for voicing your own opinion?  If so, then you really need to stop talking, cause you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

    And trust me, giving away part of your paycheck to socialism does not ensure solidarity.  The socialists in this country have tried before, and in the end we get areas like Watts, Compton, Chicago, and most other slums.  It’s also given us the CA 405, and the CA 10 highways, which are a proper fuck in of themselves.  Meanwhile, the toll roads (what few there are) are privately owned freeways, and are some of the best in the world, with minimum traffic.  So excuse me if I don’t see the benefits of socialism for a place as big and diverse as the USA.

  56. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     you pay 600 euros per month to pay for doctor visits you may not make.  Him paying 75 dollars for a once a year check up doesn’t sound so bad in comparison.

  57. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

    And I’ve been telling you that the whole "spend the entire savings account" isn’t an accurate portrayal of the American health care system.  How many times do I have to say it for it to sink in?  You’re views are based solely on misconception and worst case scenarios that both systems (social and whatever it is that America has) have. 

  58. 0
    Glasofruix says:

    Yes i have to, but i can use more money than i give if needed.

    Let’s say i earn 2000€ a month, with that amount i pay about 30% of taxes or 600€. Usually the employer pays that (he also pays various insurances plus extra taxes from his pocket), i don’t have to bother myself, so without taxes i earn 1400€. Now if that month i need an operation that costs 10,000€ or more (if i have an accident or something) i’ll pay only for the hospital’s room, for medication (which is partially reimboursed anyway) and i don’t have to pay the doctor for regular check ups and reeducation. In the end i save more money by sacrificing a small part of my salary and i don’t have to worry about my health.

    Yes other people pay for me but i also pay for them when i don’t need this money, i’m fine with that and i don’t see why i shouldn’t be.

    On the side of that my kids are going to school for free, get their teeth checked for nothing, the streets are clean, i’don’t pay when i drive on the highway and i can say to my local politician that he’s a drunkard without consequences. In the end i get more than what i paid for. It’s just why you amercians can’t get a global health care, you’re not ready to give up a part of your salary for solidarity.

  59. 0
    Glasofruix says:

    Yes i pay for them my with my tax money. A little every month instead of all my savings in one time. And if i happen to lose my job and need for medical treatment i’ll still get it, for free.

  60. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     But you do pay for them.  You just pay for them in the form of taxes.  We don’t have much taxes on that front, and thus we pay up front or through a private health insurance company, which really doesn’t cost all that much for good coverage.  And that’s for private insurance.  Usually your employer pays for it, out of pocket.  

    You may hear horror stories every day about the American system, but I can guarantee you that the grand majority of them are absolutely and utterly false.

  61. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, I pay 75 bucks for any doctor’s visit, including x-rays and many other services.  So yes, I take out of my wallet, but less than I spend in a week on games.

  62. 0
    Glasofruix says:

    Whatever, i hear stories everyday telling that american health system is crap if you can’t pay for it, personnaly i can’t imagine to pay all my medical expenses myself even if i don’t have to pay all those taxes it’s just too expensive.

  63. 0
    Glasofruix says:

    Maybe there’s some extreme cases but don’t say me that you don’t have to take out your wallet every time you pay a visit to a doctor.

  64. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     There, right there.  You’re doing it again.  Stop showing you’re lack of knowledge on the subject.  It’s kind of sad.  Hyperbole and false accusations don’t make an argument.  Not to mention you get minus points in the argument for even mentioning the pack of lies that is "sicko"

    …shit, i mentioned it too.  Minus points for me.

  65. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    There is no hospital in America where you won’t get a life saving procedure if it can be done at that facility. I’ve heard of open heart surgery done on the state’s dollar.

    And no, that movie sicko isn’t true.  It’s a Michael Moore movie.  The man lies and makes things up every other word. 

  66. 0
    Glasofruix says:

    What system?

    You mean the one who lets you die because you don’t have enough money to pay the doctor’s new car? You mean that the totally biaised MM movie "Sicko" isn’t true? And that if you haven’t a well paid job you can still access social security and not to pay huge amounts of money every time you have a tooth ache?

  67. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

    If that’s the case, then the far left is REALLY full of bigoted, intolerant, hypocrites, as you have expertly shown.

    You also have shown complete ignorance over America’s medical system.  Good job on that.

  68. 0
    Glasofruix says:

    He said in Europe, but Europe is not for massive bans of things. I don’t live in Germany so i don’t really care, PEGI system works fine for me.

  69. 0
    Glasofruix says:

    Of course it’s all paid by taxes, but in case of an accident i’m sure to not to have to choose which finger they’re going to put back just because i don’t have the 100,000$ the doctors are asking.


    Finally, I hope you’re not one of those leftists that speak so much about tolerance, as the statements of "greedy bastards" and "conservative racist idiots," isn’t so tolerant. 

    The far right is REALLY (no kidding really) full of racist conservative idiots.

  70. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Germany trying to ban any violent video games?  This is news to you?  They had it here on GP like, last week.  There was a march and a petition.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  71. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     Did I ever once say I was afraid of them?  I was simply pointing out that, yes, socialism is defined by communism.  The problem I think you have, as well as many others, is that they hear communism, and think of countries that weren’t/aren’t very communistic.

    Communism, in its true form, implies the absence of a government, class, and money.  It is the state of the proletariate, the working man.  Everyone is equal, everyone is free, and the main goal in life is to pursue what you want to do in life as well as fulfill your obligations to the rest of society.  Communism, in the form we’ve seen, was nothing more than a bunch of socialistic governments with dictators at the helm.

    Countries such as WWII Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, as well as Cold war era Russia, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and modern day China and North Korea are all examples of the potential danger in socialistic governments.  It’s not communism that has killed countless tens of millions of innocents, it’s socialism with a strong leader at the center.

    It’s great that you love your system.  It does sound wonderful at times.  The only difference though, between your system of government and the ones we’ve labeled "fascist" in the past is that you don’t have a strong leader to centralize the authority.  Which is great.  Good on you!  Hope you keep it that way.  Myself, I wouldn’t care to risk it, though.

    Just a few last things to note.  Your healthcare and education aren’t free.  It’s just that instead of paying for it directly, you pay for it through taxes.  Same reason why your college fees are so "cheap," because your taxes, and those of all the other citizens of your country, offset the true amount.  In America, you actually pay just about as much for all of those.  The only difference is that we pay up front, where as you pay through taxes.  Whatever floats your boat, really.  I personally wouldn’t trust the American government to handle socialism, as they can’t even balance their own budget.

    Finally, I hope you’re not one of those leftists that speak so much about tolerance, as the statements of "greedy bastards" and "conservative racist idiots," isn’t so tolerant.  

  72. 0
    Glasofruix says:

    Well, i live in a socialist country ruled by a socialist government (at least for now) and the streets aren’t paint in red, we’re not following any kind of plan at work and we don’t worship any leader. Our market is ruled by capitalism but we have free or very cheap high quality socialised health care as well as free education and cheap college fees. The government is affraid of us and works for our sake.

    Just some information about our system:

    First we have the far left wing: those are commies, some marginal idealists that nobody listens to

    The left wing: Socialists, we basically own them, they’re our bitches.

    Center: dunno why they are there

    The right wing: greedy bastards

    The far right wing: conservative racist idiots


    So our socialists aren’t the bloody commies you’re affraid of.

  73. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     Sorry, but socialism was actually created and defined by Karl Marx as the transition point of a society moving away from capitalism and towards communism.  At the point of socialism, the classes would be removed, and all wealth would be redistributed.  From this point, the concept of money could be abolished, and thus make the transition to communism.  So, socialism doesn’t just imply communism, but it’s actually defined by it.  Thus, it’s not McCarthian to make such statements about Socialism, but rather it’s purely Marxist*.

    With the amount of thought police over in Europe and some of it’s offspring (mostly thinking of Germany and Australia right now), I would not want a rating system anywhere close to what they would feel comfortable with.  In other words, gets your hands off of my games, England.


    *Did I just call AL a marxist there?  Ouch…sorry dude.

  74. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    "Social classes? What the fuck, people are equal, we’re all made of white bones and red blood, why do we have to make distinctions. If i follow your thoughts, soon we end up with some rich people on the top, only because they were born in rich families, and poor masses feeding them, just because their families couldn’t afford schools, looks kind of familiar."

    Obama seems to believe that the ‘white man’ is keepin his people down.  So does Sotomayor.  Oh, and Dianne Feinstein belives that we’re not equal either, as does Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden, and many, many other liberals and democrats.  You see, THEY need (and deserve) armed body guards, and, in Dianne’s case, the right to concealed carry a weapon.  But the average person doesn’t deserve the same right to own a firearm, much less carry it.  Same with healthcare; team Obama says its great for everyone, but then they refuse to sign up for it themselves.  What that means is that they feel its ‘good enough’ for the lower classes.

    All people are CREATED equal; it’s what you do after your creation that sets you apart.


  75. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Don’t forget the Daily KOS or the Huffington Post or the NY Times or NBC News… the list goes on.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  76. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    I have no problem with contributing "a little."  However, Obama is pushing a Socialist agenda.  I haven’t heard anyone deny that.  Going with that, when the President says that his trillion-dollar-a-decade medical plan (that isn’t going to cover a third of the people that aren’t insured in this country) is going to be paid for by rich people totally negates your statement.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  77. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Not necessarily, because the centrists on either side wouldn’t know how to speak.  They’re so conditioned not to speak against the extremists on both sides (see John McCain’s prez run) that they wouldn’t know what to do.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  78. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     as for the "water purification….and stuffs" that’s paid for through the american income tax, which is one of the oldest standing taxes and the only one I’m in favor of.  You’re getting some taxes confused.  There’s the taxes the government needs to run and maintain infrastructure, and then there are the superfluous taxes for fringe "benefits."  Those are basically any social program.  With the bureaucracy in America, these are the most bloated, expensive, and wasteful programs.

    And people aren’t equal in the end.  In the beginning, they’re all created equally.  They’re all born one of 2 ways.  But the way they live their lives sets them apart.  You can’t look at a person who’s worked their entire life, made good decisions, and ends up easily putting their kids through college, and then look at someone who’s done nothing but leech off of a social system to get by, and say they’re equal.  One is clearly the better person.

    And the whole "blue blood, born rich" vs the "lowly classes" argument is so cliche and outdated.  It doesn’t work like that, and there are countless cases to show.  The richest man in America started off in a lower-middle class family.  Many have gone from slums to riches using nothing but their talent.  And there are plenty who have gone from riches to rags because they’re allowed the freedom to fail.

    As for class distinction, that came about through government.  They’re the ones who decide what classes are what (as in, they draw the lines).  Either way, ignoring that term, if one person succeeds greatly in life, if he invents something great, or he manages a good corporation, or something, then he should reap the riches that come with such an achievement.  Saying "no, we’re all equal, so this extra wealth you’ve procured is now everyone’s" sounds like stealing to me.  Robin hood may sound noble, but he stole none the less.

    So, do you want to steal a person’s wealth simply to make it so everyone is "equal" and everything is "fair," even when one person worked for the money and another didn’t, or do you instead want to keep using words like "people and solidarity."  One shows your true intentions.  One is a bunch of words your hiding behind.


  79. 0
    Glasofruix says:

    I’ve read "Kapital" thank you.

    Social classes? What the fuck, people are equal, we’re all made of white bones and red blood, why do we have to make distinctions. If i follow your thoughts, soon we end up with some rich people on the top, only because they were born in rich families, and poor masses feeding them, just because their families couldn’t afford schools, looks kind of familiar.

    People don’t wan’t to pay taxes, fine, but we can’t exclude those people from using tax money (water purification, ecology, public lights, justice and others), that sounds pretty unfair for me.

  80. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     Go back to my post about socialism and communism.  Unless you forever want the connection to communism, change the name of the movement.  

    The thing is though, you shouldn’t change the name because in practice, you are doing exactly what you say you aren’t.  You say it’s not about the redistribution of wealth and so forth, yet some of the most socialistic countries have practically only 1 class.  Then, after saying it’s not about the redistribution of wealth, you say that everyone must give to the people what they can.  You contradict yourself in the same sentence.  

    It’s not natural for a person to share his wealth to support the people around him if he doesn’t want to.  Then it is stealing, no matter how much you fancy it up.  And if a person doesn’t want to give, then you know what?  Fine.  It’s his choice.  They’re adults, and can make adult decisions on their own.

    So, make up your mind.  is it about people and solidarity, or is it about making people give as much of their paycheck as possible for the greater good?  One implies something that isn’t socialism, where as the other does.

  81. 0
    Glasofruix says:

    Again, modern socialism is not communism, burn this fucking statement in your brain. Socialism is more about people and solidarity, not about stealing money from the rich to give it to the poor, everyone have to contribute according to his means. It’s only natural for one to share a little of his wealth to support the society he’s living in.

  82. 0
    Sukasa says:

    Yep I know, I generally view both sides to get a laugh and wonder if the world would be better if the extremes on both sides would just kill each other off.

  83. 0
    Sukasa says:

    This is fairly tame here. If you go to a website called Townhall, you will see conservatives there advocating for revolution, civil war, and outright slaughter of anyone they disagree with.  I’m trying to calcuate the odds that there will be another civil war-ish split in the US and people keep talking about how bad Bin Laden is and a threat to the US? Maybe its just me, but Im generally more concerned about driving down the interstate then a middle eastern terrorist with a bomb and that was true when I was in the army.

  84. 0
    Wormdundee says:

    This isn’t a reply to Austin, it’s to all of you.

    I’d like to thank you all for another highly entertaining argument about American politics. Looking in from the outside, it’s not possible for me to comprehend this hate between ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’. But yeah, keep it up I guess? 

  85. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I know.  God forbid someone earn more money than the people who are too lazy to find a real job or finish high school. 

    Oh, and while I’m thinking about it, here’s some interesting information for everyone who thinks this new health care would be so wonderful.  A republican tried to add an amendment saying that all the government officials would have to use the same plan.  Can you guess what happened to that amendment?  

    It was voted down by a HUGE margin.

  86. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I beg your fucking pardon?  Obama isn’t a socialist?  Oh really?  Because he sure seems to be a big fan of HUGE, FED-RUN CLUSTERFUCK PROJECTS, FORCING PEOPLE INTO ‘GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE’, and forcing the rich to pay for everyone else in ways not seen in quite a while, as well as BUYING INDUSTRIES.  Sounds like socialism to me, but hey, maybe I’m just a jaded cold-war kid.

    And while we’re on N. Korea, what a great example of how spineless our president is.  They threaten all the nations around him, and all he sends is a strongly worded ‘you’ve been naughty’ speech.  What leadership. 

  87. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    "We believe in freedom as everyone else, unless you happen to be rich.  If you are rich, we’ll steal your money because you don’t really deserve it because of the evil of being rich."

    Fixed for greater accuracy.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  88. 0
    Nocturne says:

    GP: Readers, what do you think of the idea of a global content rating system? Is it even possible? If so, is it desirable?

    No, PEGI barely manages with the countries it covers, Portugal has a couple of different age ratings from everywhere else. Have a ratings board which covers even more countries and I can see it becoming a bigger mess quickly.

  89. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    And even funnier because both parties will just assume you’re actually part of the other party.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  90. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    If you’re right, then why is it that Barney Frank and Bill Clinton gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack free reign with deregulation to force banks to give home loans to people who couldn’t pay them back?  Republicans were against such a bill, and were called racist because the focus of the bill was to increase minority homeowners.  Such deregulation eventually caused record loan defaults, a very large cause of the current economic crisis.

    Perhaps you should admit what your party did wrong before stoning the other one.

    Full disclosure: My party allowed MacCarthyism, southern members of my party have been and may still be racist, and the most recent President of my party started a war based on faulty intelligence, causing SOME innocent people to be killed or sent to prison.

    Let the flame war begin.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  91. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     Yeah, elections totally suck for me as well.  Should I vote for the dick or the asshole, in a blue state where the asshole will always win?  This last time I voted 3rd party.  It kind of felt good, despite the whole "throwing away the vote" thing.  But really, in CA, if you don’t vote for the democrat candidate, you’re throwing your vote away anyways.

    But in Politics, its hard to get the middle ground.  everyone is so god damned extremist that logic doesn’t really filter through.  if you argue with a dem, they think your a conservative fascist.  if you argue with a republican, they think you’re a freeloving hippie socialist.  And then, if you agree with them, you have to commit 100% sometimes.  Then you get to the fact that neither side wants to compromise, and it all boils down to a good olde fashion proper fuck.

    But yes, military base jobs rock.

  92. 0
    Sukasa says:

    Thanks, I generally don’t fit into either party so elections tend to suck. If I could I would probably run for office but I’m probably too moderate independent to get elected (not right enough for repubs and not left enough for dems). There generally should be some middle ground on most issues that can make most people happy but everyone only looks at the extremes on the issues.  Owell, just need to finish my CS degree and hopefully get a CS job at a military base again!

  93. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     Well, all’s good then.  

    My standard ploy is to try to come on strong at first.  This makes the people who are hard core fundies to their party line go all "WARGARBL," and thus it gets easier to poke fun at them (brings out even more "WARGARBL" and lols for me) and attack their points.  The level headed people though, respond level headedly (surprise, surprise), and then good talks can actually happen.

    As for this post of yours, it was well done and thought out.  Can’t really find any part I disagree with.

  94. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     Two good posts in response to my last comment.  Both brought up very good points.  However, they both can be answered in one response, so I’m responding to my previous post rather than one of the other two.

    The rank and file GOP members are much different in beliefs than the party leaders.  They did a good job for a while hiding their true intentions, but GW Bush kind of highlighted the fact that the GOP is something very different than what most of the members felt it should be.  This is exactly why Republicans did so poorly in the last election.  A lot of GOP members either didn’t vote, or voted democrat in order to spite their representative/senator.  Many still voted for GOP out of party affiliation, which isn’t surprising.  However, even a good many of these still disagreed heavily with the party platform.

    So, in short, the GOP is suffering tremendously right now because the party leaders have lost touch with their base, and they’re so used to doing things the same way that they don’t understand quite how to get back in touch with that same, disgruntled base.  What the disgruntled base wants is less government, less taxes, more freedom.  They’ve realized that while they got #2, the party leaders weren’t doing very well at delivering #1 or 3.

    Hell, I got so sick of the GOP years ago that I switched to libertarian.  It’s quite a fun spot to be at, as I can openly mock either party when I want, and I can also bring up a less biased viewpoint of either party.

  95. 0
    Neeneko says:

    It is a small, but VERY well organized and financed group.  And the media won’t even touch them since any slight against these groups is quicly painted as ‘liberal media bias’.

    Unfortunatly, moderate Christians in this country have little to no political voice.  And while the left is often painted as the oppresive anti-religion cult that is out to get Christians.. it is the right that is depriving them of a seat at the table.

  96. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    No, the GOP says they want less government, but that’s economically. But in other ways, they’d happily enforce stronger government. Anti-abortion, Christianity in public schools (that includes from prayer, to teaching alternatives such as Creationism), Bush’s wiretapping, waterboarding, etc.

    They want smaller economic government, deregulation and the likes, but want larger government in others. Right now, if it is true the majority does not feel that way, the party itself is still supporting such, because those who lead it, support such.

  97. 0
    Neeneko says:

    Unfortunatly at this stage, even if the rank and file GOP believe in less government, the leadership has not beleived in this for 30 years now.  Granted they do a good job of twisting their message to make the average republican believe they are in favor of ‘small’ government, but thier policies really do not.  Generally what I see in political debates are republican leaders talking about democrat expansions while skipping over thier own (or saying ‘well, what we did does not count since it is not a liberal expansion).  Since democrats are on a differnt platform they do not respond in same so you end up with  a highly skewed public perception.  Which works well for the GOP leadership since they can then expand all they want while thier voting base sees them as small government.

    As for censorship.  This is something both parties seem to agree on.  Concervatives rant about decaying morals, liberals rant about protecting the children.. They use differnt exuses but in the end powerful people want to control public memes.. which ones are not all that important.

  98. 0
    Sukasa says:

    Hey I was only replying to steve in that conservatives arent any better in their goals of censorship, etc.  Heck the liberals are just as bad to, so please don’t consider me a democrat( I dislike both parties). Politicans on both sides of the fence try to "get the family vote" by various means.  I would rather see if a company makes a product, let the people decide if they want to buy it or not. If it offends one group of people, so be it, but they have the right not to buy it(this aplies to just about every product or service on the market).  Sure, kids shouldn’t buy adult material, but does that mean that all video games have to be kid safe(its the parents responsibility to decide what kids play and not the goverment or some lobby group demanding more government laws)? 

    Games like Rapelay are probably offensive, but does that mean a company doesn’t have the right or choice to make and sell such game? Groups on both side of the aisle seem so happy to reduce our freedoms and choices, all "for the children" and generally people on both sides aisle are happy to bend over and take it.  Social conservaties call for banning games for un-christian conduct, etc and liberals call for banning games for sexism, etc.  We should just buy stock in lube.

  99. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     Anyone is dangerous if they’re a radical.  Period.  There’s no party affiliation about it.  The number of radicals in either party are a very small percentage.  Don’t think it’s somehow higher in the Republican party than it is with the Dems.  Doing so is just bigoted and narrow minded.

  100. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     "In fact, it’s closer to something the GOP would agree with, rather than strong liberals."

    False, yet again on this point.  Try to be less bigoted.  The majority of the GOP actually believes that there should be less government, and just as they’re basing their opinions of liberals on a select few that want to increase government and limit speech, so too are you basing your opinions of the entire GOP by a vocal few.

    And just so you know, as a libertarian I find it much easier to agree with and be friendly with Republicans on this point than with Democrats.  Most dems I know I don’t even venture into politics over because they usually get very intolerant of me when they find out I don’t share their same beliefs.  

    Now, to be clear, I’m only talking about generalities I’ve found with people I’ve dealt with/talked to/are friends with.  In no way am I making broad statements about an entire party.  Making such broad, sweeping statements is very crass and in my opinion reflect poorly on the speaker.

  101. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    You’re half right.  The idea of censorship falls on either side of the political spectrum.  It’s just a matter of what your censoring.  Conservatives who call for censorship think that extreme violence or language is bad, whereas Liberals believe that Political Correctness should be allowed.  These are both forms of censorship, as a lot of my fellow conservatives don’t think I should watch a movie with the word Fuck in it, and a lot of your fellow liberals think I shouldn’t say retarded or gay.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  102. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    I’ll say it’s a percentage, but not small. Less than the majority, maybe, but it is growing. And some are quite dangerous in their radicalism.

    P.S. Thinking on it, I should reword it. Number-wise, liberal and non-Christians (especially athiest) are growing. But those that are still around, and this pertains much more to the religious rather than conservative, some groups are gaining power, and a few are, I believe, very dangerous in their way of thinking and what they want to accomplish.

  103. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    Oh, no no no! It’s better to say, more specifically, DEMOCRATS. The Dems are moderately liberal, at best. But, just because a few of them do things, does not mean that everything they say/do is liberal. The idea of censorship is NOT a liberal ideal.

    In fact, it’s closer to something the GOP would agree with, rather than strong liberals.

  104. 0
    xMrAx says:

     Don’t know what you are talking about. I’m christian and play M games. The media just wants you to think that all conservative and religious people are nuts. A small percentage may be but for the majority of us, absolutely not true.

  105. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     They’re only the most vocal because JT calls himself such.  Before he was in the limelight, though, the most vocal were people such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman on the national level, and people such as Leland Yee in California.  In case you didn’t know, those are all Democrats.

    So, both the Republicans and the Democrats want to limit your free speech because it may offend their weaker sensibilities.  There’s also the rallying cry that both make, "but think of the children."  Banning "offensive" material isn’t a topic you can point to a specific party on.  Both are horrendously guilty of that crime.  So in short, STFU on your partisan bickering lest you become a hypocrite.

  106. 0
    Neeneko says:

    Most ‘Free Market’ peep have very little idea how actual free markets work.. or how quickly they become functionally equivelent to communism.  Which is why no first world country has one or (hopefully) ever will.

  107. 0
    jedidethfreak says:


    I’m a Conservative, and I get lumped with the crazies on the right on GP.  Grow a pair of balls and stop crying.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  108. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     are you sad that harsh words were said at you in an argument on the internet? :(

    Do you need to hold someone’s hand till you feel better?

  109. 0
    Icehawk says:

    I resent that you are resentful.  Are we even now?   

    Mostly things posted here are not personal and those that are are generally known to be.  Might I recommend Decaff?

  110. 0
    JustChris says:

    Agreed on the cultural differences part. For all the Rapelay-related stories, doesn’t it strike anyone as odd of the game being a legal topic of discussion halfway around the world, and not in its own country? What is the Japanese government’s view of Rapelay being sold in a store made for general audiences? We hear more about it from where the origin of the content is out of our jurisdiction.


  111. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    What, you mean you don’t think that there is, or could possibly be, one single global standard for what is offensive and what is not?  You so crazy.

    Seriously though, this is an incredibly stupid idea.  Every culture around the world has different things that they do or do not find offensive, and trying to find overlap between all of them would leave us with practically nothing being available to anybody.

    Once again, we see the failure of these politicians to understand the difference between a commercial, rated release of a videogame, making it widely available, and things like online flash games, foreign imports, unrated games, etc.  The media loves to call politicians out on being wrong and out of touch.  How is it that they have let these guys slide with their misinformation for so long?  It drives me nuts.

  112. 0
    T5 says:

    GP: Readers, what do you think of the idea of a global content rating system? Is it even possible? If so, is it desirable?


    I can honestly say I would not be a fan

  113. 0
    Bennett Beeny says:

    I’m a socialist, and I resent the notion that you’d call me, or any other person who has a similar political opinion a "fucking" anything.

  114. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    And there you go the fuck again. If you want a leader with a "spine," why not head to North Korea, eh? There, you got someone who has the balls to threaten the US. Enough spine for you?

    And Obama is no socialist, so you and the rest of the godforsaken GOP can (but won’t) can it. I’m American, but also, I AM a Socialist, and proud to be one! Just because we are socialist, does not mean we want authoritarian rule; we believe just as much in freedom as everyone else!

  115. 0
    Sukasa says:

    Funny…isnt it the social conservatives the ones most vocal about banning and restricting M and AO rated game (and is anti-christian or they find it offends them)?  Funny how we always hear about how great the "free market" is and should be way the US runs, except for products that offend conservatives or they just dont like.

  116. 0
    Erik says:

    Buck up chum.  There is always a chance that Obama will invade a country based on zero evidence.  Would more dead foreigners make you feel better?

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  117. 0
    Glasofruix says:

    Socialism does not imply communism. You only think that because you were told so since McCarthy&cie.

    Anyway, as i understand this, it just means that there’s going to be (or they want to) only one rating system, that’s all (anyway i’m curious to see how they’re going to put that in motion). Nothing will change for us gamers but mabe some parents would see the BIG 18+ sign before go bitching cause their 9 years son dates hookers ingame.

  118. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I would hope that the US tells the ‘global regulatory’ agency to go eat a dick.  Sadly, with our current president having no spine and being, basically, a fucking socialist, I don’t see that happening.

  119. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    This.  Dear God, this.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  120. 0
    Vake Xeacons says:

    Are we talking about a world-wide Ratings? ESRB Global kinda thing?

    Actually, no, I can say forget it.

    Each culture is different, and each country has their own idea of good and evil. One rating board to cover the entire world would need a rep from each country, and most of the little ones would be completely overlooked.

    No, it’s best each culture takes it upon themselves to decide individually. ESRB for North America, PEGI for Europe, etc. We’re all different; we need to treat each other as such.

  121. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     Members of the british parliament being arrogant and ignorant!?  I’m shocked and appalled.

    Being serious though, I would like to thank the honorable ministher Vinzent on his wise remarks, and I would like to express that I concur whole-heartedly.

  122. 0
    Vinzent says:

    Are the Brits trying to step in to become the world’s moral police?

    Frankly I think it’s impractical. Each society has different views on what is offensive. To say that one standard of values should be imposed on the world is arrogant and ignorant.

  123. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    He did order an attack on Pakistan shortly into his term…

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  124. 0
    Neeneko says:

    Short/Medium term, there is no advatnage to the ESRB (unless they manage to be the ones runing the new global system).

    The way I see this happening is that over time (read: generations) a global level system will slowly emerge and slowly surplant the ESRB/PEGI/etc via industry and customers simply seeing less value in the ‘local only’ ratings system.

    Eventually we will get industry complaints saying things like ‘getting a rating per area is just too time consuming anyway, and since BigMartMark7 supports NewFangledRatingSystem in all of it’s world wide stores anyway, we finally dropped the ESRB’

  125. 0
    JDKJ says:

    And it is, perhaps, that pumping of money and power which may make globalization difficult, if not impossible. Why would the ESRB willingly surrender all that money and power to some global rating service? Unless they were somehow allowed to share in the money and power which would accrue to that newly-established global service? What would be in it for them?  

  126. 0
    Neeneko says:

    Long term? It will probably happen eventually.  As cultures become more and more similar over time, the need for separate rating systems based off local sensibilities decreases.

    Eventually the only purpose they serve is to pump money and power into local bureaucracies.

  127. 0
    lizardinmycoffee says:

    I’d have to disagree with you on that one. While I can agree that there are things that need fixing in both the US and EU, I’ve heard of more games being banned or altered for content in the EU than in the US.

  128. 0
    Michael Chandra says:

    Isn’t the only difference between PEGI and ESRB simply the 18 instead of 17? But there’s some material that isn’t found as offensive here as in the USA, so I’d expect this wouldn’t work. Yeah, that’s right, I’m blaming YOU guys for something. AL might think his USA is so perfect and an example to follow for everyone, but I think there’s plenty of improvement possible both at USA and at Europe.

  129. 0
    lizardinmycoffee says:

    Won’t happen any time in the near future. To make it work, you’d have to pander to the people who are very sensitive to the content in video games ala Michael Atkinson and Keith Vaz. I’m leaving JT out of this because he has no real governmental authority. And since Atkinson won’t even discuss the idea of a Mature rating…

  130. 0
    Cheater87 says:

    I like how this guy said adults should be able to play adult games.  But I have a feeling that it meens content that the VSC says adults can play. :(

Leave a Reply