|
First off, I apologize for oversimplifying your argument. I did it knowingly and intentionally, and I shouldn't have. I did it to make a point, but it was unfair to you and resulted in an overstatement of my point.
I'll just say this... I basically agree with most of what you've said, however, I think taking the approach of trying to "get rid of these bad lessons" and wanting it "changed for society's benefits" is the wrong one. It seems too close to censorship for me to be comfortable. What you've done... distribute knowledge, open debate and dialog, make compelling arguments... that's the best way to do it. I wrote what I wrote because I felt like that debate and dialog was getting sidetracked by a fruitless argument of shoulds and shouldn'ts, whether some people should be given the power over what sort of media the public should be allowed to engage with, about giving the power over what is good and bad for people to a select few, rather than talking about the failings of the game and how they could be improved. That's the relevant discussion, in my opinion. Of course, now that I've had my say, don't let me stop you.
__________________
I'm swimming in the digital residue of a media-drenched world. It's too cold.
|