At 8/13/16 11:31 PM, Tybia99 wrote:
Trump: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/280812064539283457
Hillary: https://youtube.com/watch?v=d3GTJOZLaPY
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/hillary-clinton-promotes-law-to-ban-violent-video-games-1.550126
So...in all likelihood the next leader of the US will be in favor of banning video games.
Anything we can/should do?
Trump was just pandering. He has a tie-in GAME after all
As to the other, here's a better quality link
It was considered so bad at the time not even Jack Thompson would touch it. Also note the sort of language and hyperbole used, ever since polichickens found "children are the best defense against the actions of a scoundrel" they've come back to it again and again because "the midlands" are too damb ignorant to question what this or that law actually protects.
At 8/14/16 04:24 AM, lapis wrote:
That Hillary clip is from, what, the 90s? Hasn't what she's proposing long since been enacted though, like E/T/M/A labels on Newgrounds submissions?
Regarding Trump, I wouldn't really take his tweets as indicative of his beliefs, assuming he has any. He has apparently already changed his mind on the issue. In fact, by the time anyone reads this post, he'll most likely have switched positions on this at least once.
2005. Just like with the "Defense of Marriage Act" she was against it before she was for it. She's a real flipper, which is why she's the more dangerous of the two (not to mention war-wacky) while Donald just says things for an immediate crowd then goes back to his old positions.
What a topsy-turvy election. The Republican is running as a Democrat and the Democrat is running as a Republican!
(and the DNC proved exactly why he was right to run as a republican!)
At 8/14/16 01:39 PM, Halberd wrote:
To say Hillary wants to ban video games is a bit unfair, she wanted a law that would ban the sale of M and AO rated video games to children. I don't really agree with that either and you could argue slippery slope, but there is a big difference between what the headline says and the content of the article.
That was what South Korea said too...Also about porn, and their internet curfew. Slow boils, my friend! Not to mention she has a financial reason to do so as well, not just ideological! In fact I like to use that as a good example of where Merkel had planned to go too, until she blew herself up with the immigration fiasco. I can't find a more recent English link about it but it's since expanded to cover first college-aged (whether attending or not) young adults claiming staying up all night was causing them to underperform in their studies, and then to adults claiming they underperformed in work.
The curfew also since then interlinked with their alcohol laws, prohibiting foreigners from attending nightclubs as well.
I wish I could find an english breakdown of this but it's all in malay, korean, or japanese. But it's essentially what the "slippery slope" actually looks like in practice, not this silly crap repukes truck out with "Gays will marry their animals and children next, and then DEAD PEOPLE!" Allowing "community standards" to determine what is illegal pornography or not also leads this way, as visible in the case of Mike Diana. This is the secondary reason Clinton's record on 'censorship' is also dangerous.