Gee, scary title. 
I’ll try to make this post shorter by making it just the first of a series of posts about this theme.
“Liberals” and “conservatives” are two terms used in some of the most intense discussions and flamewars on the Internet. This has happened for decades. But what do they mean, really? I don’t believe that they mean the same to everyone – independently of what one’s own position is.
Let’s start by trying to come to some definitions, then.
You’ve probably heard of a couple of such attacks, recently. But have you heard the latest one? They apparently want Google to disclose search data. Google is refusing.
The most worrying thing is that MSN and Yahoo! have already complied.
Of course, the government doesn’t say it’s attacking privacy. It says it’s doing it “for the children”. Remember People and they stated goals? How, by saying you’re doing something (whatever it is) for some noble cause, it apparently excuses anything you do, and demonizes anyone who criticizes you? That’s what’s happening here:
Jack Samad, senior vice president for the National Coalition for Protection of Children and Families, a Cincinnati, Ohio-based advocacy group, said search engines should be willing to help the Bush administration defend the law.
Samad said: “Young people are experiencing broken lives after being exposed to adult images and behaviours on the Internet. I’m disappointed Google did not want to exercise its good corporate branding to secure the protection of youth. I think [complying with the subpoena] would substantiate the basis of Copa if they get a free exchange of information on youthful use of the internet.”
But in which way would getting “millions of search records” help in that? That’s what they don’t say. And where does it end? Anyone can abuse a child at home, so why not install government cameras in every room of every single home?
I sometimes think you could get away with killing children by saying you were doing it “to protect the children”…
I wanted to talk about Jack Thompson’s latest disgusting scheme (he said he would donate $10.000 to charity if someone made an absolutely revolting game about going on a murder spree against real members of the video game industry, then someone did it, and he said his offer was just “satire”, then the Penny Arcade guys donated the $10K to charity – in his name – and now he wrote a letter to the police asking them to arrest the PA guys…), but everything that could be said about that has already been said elsewhere.
So, instead, I’m writing about one of the possible ways that that creep could be successful:
Equating someone’s stated goals with the person himself.
Consider that example: Jack Thompson says he wants to prevent school shootings and cop killings… by banning violent video games.
Now, preventing school shootings and cop killings is a laudable goal, certainly. But:
However, to a certain… let’s say, “more intellectually-challenged” segment of the population, it’s easy to make the jump from:
- Jack Thompson is trying to prevent cop killings
(which is already untrue, but let’s even imagine that it was true, that he was simply misguided instead of being what he is)
to:
- Anyone who opposes Jack Thompson’s methods, or criticizes him, is in favor of cop killings.
To anyone who uses reason, that’s absurd – there’s no way to logically conclude the second from the first (even if the first was true, which it isn’t). But it’s easy to get confused, and perform that leap of “logic” – “he says he’s in favor of X, so anyone who criticizes him is against X”. Or the other way around.
It happens the same way, but on a larger scale, with a certain current American president. He says he’s fighting terrorism. Whether he actually is, or not, isn’t important – anyone who disagrees with him or his methods, or criticizes him in any way, is “supporting terrorism”.
Just like anyone who opposed Senator McCarthy was “a communist”. He said so, and people believed him.
People, please think a little more about things like this. A person isn’t defined by his stated goals, which are usually laudable, but by his actions – and you aren’t against those goals when you notice that his actions don’t actually do anything to accomplish such goals… and say so.
I’d prepare for those locusts if I were you…
In the state of Michigan, U.S.A, apparently a law forbidding the sale of “mature” (you know, what in a movie means PG, but in a game means M or even AO) games to minors passed. Even though it’s unconstitutional.
But, surprisingly, the video games industry is fighting back. For a change. About time, IMO.
Subscribe to this blog
