Following the response to Leland Yee's suggestion that gamers should “quiet down” because their “lust for violence” gives them “no credibility” in the argument on gun violence, the California State Senator has Tweeted an apology. Of sorts.
Gamers, I admittedly didnt use best words to SFchron. Meant video game industry has inherent conflict of interest in the gun violence debate
— Leland Yee (@LelandYee) January 25, 2013
I have a lot of respect for many gamers – many are on my staff and in my family – but the industry has profited at the expense of children.
— Leland Yee (@LelandYee) January 25, 2013
Okay, so he accidentally used the wrong phrase. It can happen in an interview, although as one of the replies to the Tweet points out, “lust for violence” is quite a bit stronger than “conflict of interest”:
@lelandyee You meant "conflict of interest" but accidentally said "lust for violence"? Woops!
— Mark Ryan Sallee (@MRSallee) January 26, 2013
And on that line of thought, what is our conflict of interest as far as the actual issue of gun violence is concerned? Gamers wouldn't be considered a group with such a conflict had people like those reps from the NRA not brought us into the debate in the first place. If the very fact that we stand accused of contributing to the problem means we're no longer allowed to speak up, then does that mean the NRA has to shut up too? What if I publicly state that the issue of gun violence is just a problem with North America as a whole? Does that mean all its citizens have to “quiet down” too, and another country gets to step in and decide what to do about it? What a clever way to solve debates.
I'd like to state for the record that Leland Yee clearly has a conflict of interest as far as video games are concerned. Much as he might claim to have “a lot of respect for many gamers”, he is obviously biased against the industry and should “just quiet down” himself. Until he and others like him do so, why the hell should we?
