Once Again GamePolitics Misses the Point To Stir Hornets Nest

This is starting to become a trend over at GP.? They sure don’t miss an opportunity to throw the Christian community under the bus.? Which I probably wouldn’t have an issue with if they were putting all religions that didn’t agree with their agenda under the gun.? But alas, they seem to only sniff out stories about Christians and the homosexual agenda.

GamePolitics latest story, Conservative Christian Site Slams Same-Sex Couple Option in Game of Life, begins with its completely misleading title and then picks and chooses it’s quotes to mislead their audience pertaining to a story at WorldNetDaily.

What follows is a slew of comments, and you can imagine the tone, hate mongering religious intolerance.

First of all, what don’t you get?? The Christian community has a total conviction that they answer to a higher power, and that power deems homosexual relationships inappropriate.? Do you really think they care what you think?? Furthermore, religious intolerance is no less wrong than homophobia or racism. Your hate for them or what they believe is absolutely no different than the hate “you perceive” they have.

Finally, and most importantly, and I’ll try not to be too bold about this, LEARN TO READ.

The entire article was not “slamming” in any way shape or form homosexual lifestyle in the Game of Life.? In fact, GamePolitics notes that WND had recognized that homosexual relationships in Game of Life were essentially available to the player since 1960.

What the WND asked for in its comments to Shockwave.com was consideration for young children that may not be ready to deal with those concepts or parents that feel like their children are not ready to discuss the issue at 6 years old.

And there is certainly a difference in the option to shove two pegs in the front seat of a plastic car and visual images of same sex couples being married in a computer game for young children.

Self-regulation of game content is something that GP lobbies for and that I agree with them on.? This is an opportunity to say, “We understand that some people don’t agree with this agenda, and they don’t want their young children being exposed to content that would normally be rated M T by the ESRB, so maybe they have a point that young children should be protected here.”

Ignoring this simple concept is how we get enforced regulation on us like out in Utah.

Bravo guys, way to fail at your own agenda.? -Insert your doing it wrong image here.-

-nick

Comments

14 Responses to “Once Again GamePolitics Misses the Point To Stir Hornets Nest”
  1. DarkRider says:

    The comments at GP are not “religous intolerant” its logic, which people like you fail to understand. Conservative Christians seem to hate any and everyone who is not exactly like them, who hold the same values, and the same goals. Anyone who does not believe what they believe, is wrong.

    Conservative Christians are almost like non violent nazis

  2. nick says:

    First reply at GP: “Yeah, and what of it? Fucking bastards. Why don’t you take a god damn stick, roast it over the fire, and shove it up your god damn asses. Fucking gay-haters.”

    Nope, you’re right, that’s not hate speech or religious intolerance…its “logic”.

    The irony in the comments is that all the people who say “Christians don’t like anyone that isn’t like them” all don’t like Christians because Christians are not like them.

    Not to mention you still miss the point of the post. The WND article was about young children like under 10 years old being exposed to things their parents weren’t ready to share with them yet. Hell, you don’t even have sex-ed until 6th grade man.

    Feel free to “logic” your way out of your double standard: http://www.thelobbyist.net/forums/index.php?topic=4.0

  3. Valdearg says:

    The only reason we are “intolerant” of christians is because they are “intolerant” to everyone else that happens to have a different life view. Honestly, if Christians could just leave well enough alone and mind thier own god damned business when it comes to OTHER PEOPLE’S Lifestyles, then we wouldn’t have anything to complain about.

    Any intolerance or hatred that any Christian’s happen to feel from these comments deserve it, frankly. If you don’t want to experience the hatred from the MILLIONS of people you offend daily with YOUR hate speech and YOUR intolerance, then get a grip and think for yourself. If you can’t do that, then SHUT THE HELL UP AND MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS when it comes to how other people choose to live THIER lives.

    If you can’t keep you mouths shut on issues that DON’T AFFECT YOU than I see no reason to keep myself from bashing and insulting every homophobic, backwards thinking, moronic, stupid, sheep of a human (IF you can call them that) Christian who can’t think for themselves because the big magic guy in the sky might send you to an imaginary fire place where the other big magic guy will sodimize you with his pitchfork for eternity.. (Which some of you Hypocritical Christians are bound to enjoy)

  4. Andrew Eisen says:

    “…they don?t want their young children being exposed to content that would normally be rated M by the ESRB…”

    Homosexuality by itself does not require an M rating. (Bully, The Sims)

    Andrew Eisen

  5. Shih Tzu says:

    Sexual material (physical intimacy between couples, such as kissing) might be inappropriate for a game targeted towards all ages. As far as I can tell from the WND article, though, this is not the case.

    I fail to see how an entirely nonsexual image of Jennifer standing next to her chosen wife is worse than one of Jennifer standing next to her chosen husband. The problem with the always-entertaining WND in this case is that they hold imagery of same-sex couples to a different standard than that of opposite-sex couples. This is the same sort of paranoid mentality that leads religious conservatives to whine that homosexuality is being “rubbed in their face” when some poor dude has the audacity to mention his husband in casual conversation.

  6. nick says:

    Thanks for the reply Shih Tzu. Your concerns do make sense.

    However, take a moment to put your feet in the shoes of a parent of a child, a young child under 10 let’s say. Maybe you don’t feel it’s the right time to explain to your child about heterosexual or homosexual relationships. But you want your child to be able to enjoy some innocent games.

    This is why we have the ESRB. And for it to work without enforced regulation like the Utah bill, we have to trust that companies self-regulate.

    The only thing concerned individuals like the author of the WND post are essentially asking is that if a game contains content that may be suggestive, that they be given a self-regulated rating that parents may monitor.

  7. Cripple MrOnion says:

    In Life, homosexuals are not able to reproduce. Nature is so offensive! What about our rights?!

  8. Ixtli says:

    It’s nice to see that as usual you miss the point completely.

    Nick if you can’t see that your position is completely biased I’m not sure what I can do for you.

    A parent should have no more trouble explaining about same sex marriage to a child than explaining to the same child what I’m sure you would term “normal” marriage is.

    The argument from the WND that the content is “hurtful” to children is somewhat delusional to begin with. The child in question has no feelings one way or the other on homosexuality, he or she is not offended by a same sex relationship. He or she is simply curious.

    The parents are who you are trying to protect. Those who believe that homosexuality is “wrong” or “not normal” I can see why a parent subscribing to that warped philosophy would have trouble explaining that the smiling picture was actually a evil girl who was responsible for many of the worlds ills because she chose to pick another girl to play life with rather than a boy.

  9. nick says:

    The problem with your reasoning is that you are trying to pre-determine when a given parents should speak to their kids about anything. You can’t do that.

    But again… That’s not the issue at hand. GP and myself (given that my profession is tech policy) daily practice an agenda of looking out for the gaming sector when it comes to regulation. Regulators look for any excuse to regulate content. The gaming sector has a voluntary system in which game publishers can submit games to be rated.

    Unfortunately, no matter what one’s moral compass dictates, ESRB rates all sexual themes as M content. I’m not suggesting that be the case here. But allowing the game to be reviewed and have some rating is necessary for the games industry to continue unabated as a self-regulated industry.

    The problem with rating content is that it will always be subjective because everyone has a different moral compass. The issue at hand is that either we tow the line at best as possible and allow for self-regulation, or we ignore the line, self-regulation is ignored, and companies put out whatever content they want, and then the government steps in and decides our moral compass for us.

  10. Andrew Eisen says:

    “Unfortunately, no matter what one?s moral compass dictates, ESRB rates all sexual themes as M content.”

    Again, no it doesn’t. Run an ESRB search for the “Sexual Themes” descriptor and you will come up with 113 T rated games.

    Andrew Eisen

  11. nick says:

    Andrew,
    Thanks for the correction. You’re absolutely right. I was thinking T, typed M.

    Point still stands. 6 year old kids aren’t thirteen. An age number most certainly doesn’t magically make anyone qualified to look at any specific content. The idea here is that it gives a parent an idea of what is in a game.

    Like I said, it’s subjective.
    One person will say this is a non-issue. The parent will reply, “It’s not your kid, I will decide when to talk with them about X issue.”
    The person responds, “Well then don’t let them play the game.”
    And the parent replies, “I would…had the game gave notice in it’s ratings.”
    Parent goes to Congressman. Congressman passes ridiculous forced regulation bill.
    Had game publisher issued a copy of the game to ESRB and had the content rated so the parent could decide whether or not to let their kid play the game in the first place, this never snow balls and there isn’t an article in WND.

  12. Andrew Eisen says:

    Just cruised around Hasbro’s site and if it says the game is appropriate for 6-year-olds, I totally missed it. I also see no content descriptors for the game (although, plenty reviews mention the same-sex marriage stuff).

    I personally would be floored by a parent allowing their kid to play the Game of Life when they’re not comfortable explaining the idea of relationships, marriage, or having children. The title and short description should clue said parent into the fact that they may want to look closer.

    Still, I don’t see a need for Hasbro to go to the expense of an ESRB rating on a little downloadable game. And while content descriptors would be nice, pointing out that the Game of Life contains the aforementioned adult themes does seem a tad redundant.

    I think intent is important here. Some may disagree but I don’t think Hasbro was out to hide anything or offend anybody. Looks like it just didn’t see content it felt was worth a warning.

    Andrew Eisen

  13. nick says:

    I really can’t disagree with you on those points.
    Maybe this is a class of games that someone like whattheyplay.com should be handling?

  14. Andrew Eisen says:

    That’s a fine suggestion indeed. It doesn’t appear to be something What They Play currently focuses on but I think reviewing free web games that kids can get at easily would be very valuable for many parents.

    Andrew Eisen