Ralph Nader Calls Video Game Industry ‘Electronic Child Molesters’

Former long-shot U.S. presidential candidate and consumer protection advocate is making waves today after comparing the video game industry and the products they create to "electronic child molesters." The comment was made as part of a wider criticism of President Barack Obama's new plan to reduce gun violence and his inauguration yesterday. Speaking to Politico, Nader said that the president's proposals do not go far enough in regulating the video game industry.

"We are in the peak of [violence in entertainment]. Television program violence? Unbelievable. Video game violence? Unprecedented," Nader said. "I’m not saying he wants to censor this, I think he should sensitize people that they should protect their children family by family from these kinds of electronic child molesters."

This is not the first time Nader has slammed the video game industry; after the Columbine school shootings, Nader had this to say:

"All this is fine with the companies; these boys and girls spent more than $25 billion last year, and what they got in return is violent, addictive, and tawdry sensuality," Nader blogged at the time. "These electronic child molesters have little sense of restraint or boundaries. Their odious fare is becoming more coarse, more violent, and more interactive to seduce these youngsters into an addiction of direct video game involvement in the mayhem."

On the President and his party's new term, Nader didn't mince words either:

"Tomorrow I’ll watch another rendition of political bullsh*t by the newly reelected president, full of promises that he intends to break just like he did in 2009," the two-time Green Party presidential candidate told POLITICO on Sunday night. "He promised he’d be tough on Wall Street, and not one of these crooks have gone to jail — they got some inside trading people, but that’s peripheral."

Source: GameSpot by way of Cheater87

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


  1. black manta says:

    Still, it can't be argued that in both races, it was close.  Every vote mattered.  If Nader had not been a candidate, especially in the 2000 election, it's possible that we would not have had the debacle that resulted.  And our history books might have been different.

  2. E. Zachary Knight says:

    I lost any respect I had for Nader years ago, when he ran as a "spoiler" in the 2000 and 2004 elections, stealing potential votes away from both Gore and Kerry, respectively.  Cartoonist Tim Krieder said it best about him back in 2004…

    The "spoiler effect" is nothing but a political fallacy. There is no such thing. In order to have a true "spoiler effect" one must assume that the votes of the people are owned by a specific candidate prior to being cast. That is a moronic and self absorbed attitude. Votes must be earned. Kerry and Gore did not earn the votes of those who voted for Nader.

    Let's put it this way. Let's say a Nader supporter's vote is for sale. To buy one, Kerry or Gore would have to pay $2 dollars for it. Unfortunately, Gore and Kerry are only able or willing to pay $1. So they are not able to buy a Nader Supporter's vote.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  3. black manta says:

    I lost any respect I had for Nader years ago, when he ran as a "spoiler" in the 2000 and 2004 elections, stealing potential votes away from both Gore and Kerry, respectively.  Cartoonist Tim Krieder said it best about him back in 2004…

    I heard Ralph Nader interviewed on NPR last Thursday morning, and got into an argument about him with my friend Aaron, who was then staying with me. I ended up trying to argue both Aaron and my friend Jim out of voting for Nader that week. Nader in 2004 reminds me of a line from Kim Stanley Robinson's latest novel, Forty Signs of Rain: "An excess of rationality is itself a kind of madness." His motives are admirable, I agree with everything he says, and his ideas are entirely self-consistent, but it's obvious to everyone but him that his actions will bring about exactly the opposite of what he says he wants to achieve. It's like, sure, technically I agree with Libertarians, except if you follow their ideology to its logical conclusion–which is what they're all about–it means AK-47s for everybody. This is a kind of insanity particularly obvious in the Bush administration today–forcing all available data to conform to their ideology and ignoring any information that won't. They begin with a premise based on what will benefit them or what they want voters to believe–tax cuts will help the economy, Iraq will become a Beacon of Democracy in the Middle East, global warming does not exist–and cling fanatically to it even as dumb old empirical reality not only fails to back them up but, treasonously, flat-out contradicts them. Nader is exactly as delusional as Bush in this sense, blinded to the consistent, glaring facts by his deranged idee fixe, continuing to insist that no one wants Bush out of office more than he and that his candidacy will only help Kerry, no matter how many polls show clearly in bar-graph form that Nader will take votes away from Kerry and give Bush the lead. He's like fucking Wile E. Coyote, man: he belives he's a "supra-genius," his plan is complex, elegant, and foolproof, he's got it all elaborately diagrammed on the big blackboard–the bird seed, the springs, the rocket skates, the boulder–except that ANY GODDAMNED EIGHT-YEAR-OLD WATCHING CARTOONS SATURDAY MORNING CAN SEE IT'S DOOMED TO END IN CATASTROPHE. On November second he's going to be sheepishly unfurling his spindly little umbrella while the ominous shadow grows larger and larger around him with alarming speed. Then, I guess, back to the old drawing board for campaign '08.

    Aaron and I tossed around a couple of ideas for the perfect metaphorical situation to illustrate this syndrome. I considered a classic Fifties science-fiction film scenario: Bush as ravaging alien monster tearing people's heads off; Kerry as the no-nonsense Army guy who just wants to shoot the damned thing; and Nader as the eggheaded pinko scientist arguing that we have much to learn from the creature and should try to communicate with it. It was Aaron, I believe, who suggested Nader as some sort of mad scientist with an experiment gone out of control. I was unenthusiastic about this at first and only began drawing it out of desperation, as I had a self-imposed early deadline this week, but as the details filled in it began to seem exactly right. This was really just an accident of composition (all my composition is accidental) but I like how Ralph ends up obdurately facing away from the devastation he's wreaking, refusing even to acknowledge it, while I, his hapless lab assitant, frantically scream and point.

    Actually what Ralph Nader really brings to mind is a quote from The Dude: "No, Walter, you're not wrong–you're just an asshole."

  4. Kal says:

    Wow, and I thought I liked Nader.

    Jesus, maybe I should just run for office. Every time I think I find someone who I agree with, they turn around and show themselves up as an asshole.

  5. Cecil475 says:

    1. Isn't it funny that anyone who is opposed to videogames and want to impose some form of enforcement also plead that they are not wanting to censor it.

    2. They always bring up how much the videogame industry makes as if it makes any difference.

    Edit: I think that Mr. Ralph Nader should go back to telling others what cars are or are not safe and leave the videogame stuff to more qualified professionals.   

    – W


    R.i.P GamePolitics 2005-2016

  6. MechaTama31 says:

    Yup, a rising trend of violent entertainment, with an accompanying downward trend of real-life violence.  You make a fantastic point, Mr. Geezer.

  7. Imautobot says:

    I have a lot of respect for Ralph, but saying this takes him down a peg.  I gotta disagree with him here.

    I imagine most Gamer Politics folk don't know much about him, while Wikipedia might give you a taste of the good he's done, I would recommend the documentary "An Unreasonable Man."  I think it would alarm many people to know the impact he's made on your life.

  8. Neeneko says:

    Depends on how you define 'barely relevant'.  He had a massive impact on things like consumer protection laws and safety standards that we take for granted today.

    He was not relevant as a political candidate, but most of the time politicians are less relevent then most mid-range actors and celebrities…

  9. axiomatic says:

    Old people are old.

    I'm 44 and remember this guy was barely relevant when I was graduating college so take this for what it is. Old out of touch guy is old and out of touch.

    This is just another in the "Elvis's gyrating pelvis is evil" kind of myopic responses.

  10. Neeneko says:

    I think a more accurate word would be 'was'.  He was a significant force at one time, but he jumped the shark years ago.

  11. NyuRena says:

    Soooo… 17+M rated game makers are molesting children via their parents letting them play the games?

    He's gone far past "molesting" logic and moved on to something far more violent and forceful.

Comments are closed.