I've had the unfortunate experience of dealing with someone of this caste, unfortunately. The truth is, the politician caste of people have an agenda (to truly understand what i mean by this, keep reading, because it's not the first thing that comes to mind), and it scarcely represents what comes out of their mouths. The one example i've dealt with before (unfortunately, the best i got was some vague references, but he's a communist who has ties to some slovenian politician in Ljubljana [he claims he wasn't interested in using his connections, but he was certainly guided by them]), the guy admitted he didn't believe in climate change, but instead believed in the legislation because his real goal was to curb CO2, because he believed CO2 was at the heart of violence in urban areas.

Similarly, I don't think anyone at that level honestly believes that violent games lead to violent crimes. My guess is they're more focused on video games as a whole, and see them as the thing that leads to chronic unemployment, and targeting the violent ones seems like a good avenue, since just about anything can be construed as violence. The violent crime then just becomes the excuse to do so. Gamergate was clearly another attempted angle at this, as the whole thing started with, well, this "game" and it's creator(s).

Frankly, this isn't about controlling the fringe, and until people start seeing it, this kind of BS will continue. These politicians have way too much power and way too much hubris to bother themselves with actual fringe elements, and tend to focus on controlling larger groups of people by exploiting events caused by fringe groups. How often do they actually do anything about actual fringe groups? You really think that the US military, for example, with it's ability to track Iranian operatives in various middle-eastern countries that are so war-torn it's not likely that you can get wifi service in them, yet they can't track gangs in the cities full of wifi and cell service everywhere? I understand a few internet trolls can hide from the US government, no trouble, thanks to VPNs and similar technology, but people who make physical appearances at the events of focus?

This should be painfully obvious from the fact that illegal immigraiton policies hurt the illegal immigrants more than anyone else (but still hurts everyone else), which seems counter intuitive at first, but becomes blindingly apparent when talking to them about their trips here (you wouldn't believe how many of them actually think they're coming here legally). Or how about how the George Floyd thing exploded, when in 2015 a black cop did the same hold on a white guy (good luck finding it, but i stumbled upon the video on youtube while looking for the george floyd video, because i was skeptical enough to watch it)? Turns out, common maneuver, and actually for the suspect's benefit (it's an attempt to prevent a heart attack by restricting movement with head control), but you're probably completely unaware of this, or of this case where a black cop "killed" a white guy using the exact same procedure. Or how about the press, themselves, calling COVID "just the flu," when caught with a hot mic they thought was off? Or what about Zuckerberg making false claims prior to banning fals COVID-vaccine claims on facebook? And then we have the WHO claiming no evidence of human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2, which was touted by everyone for way, way too long and justified a lack of quarantine of China, leading to the whole pandemic (it was obvious on the face of it with basic understanding of infectious diseases that a disease primarily in the lungs would end up being transmissible). Oh, how about the claim that only vaccines result in antibodies, not real infections, increasing the risk in anaphylaxis and wasting vaccine doses instead of getting them to people who need them?

How can anyone honestly assume any degree of honesty from state governors or up at this point (regardless of party)? Just compare their words to their actions.

Some good points here.

I especially agree that the activities of fringe elements gives the 'excuse' the government needs to do what it wants to do.

But setting aside for a moment individual politicians and their motives, i think society as a whole are mainly responsible for all this with all the various movements calling for problems to be solved. Then politicians simply smell the votes and follow up on it.

There was an episode of the Simpsons years ago that sticks in my mind.... Homer ended up planting safety signs all over the town, no one could do anything.... why the writers of that show always know exactly how to mock the idiocies in modern society?

As for the George Floyd thing, well it was immediately obvious to me that the whole issue is about the choke hold, is it allowed or not and if yes, WHYYY? what a F#####g stupid way of holding a suspect, OMG!
But then it gets twisted into being a black thing... even more stupid!
And now we have this black lives matter movement, which means other lives don't matter.... i know its not the intention, (for most people) but this is how the English language works. You should say what you mean or don't say it at all.
although only black lives matter does certainly bear true in the degree of public concern when someone is killed by police.... not black, who cares, black, riots and protests nationwide.... yep, we made the black lives matter alright!!!

Oh yeah?!?

Well, a Violent Video game wants to ban Lawmakers in Chicago!

So there! How does that make you feel, huh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFiSdsW9lfA

So he wants to be disbarred like the other guy?

Ha, I love that game.

Without society why would these politicians bother? At the end of the day, the politicians are authoritarian, because we want that. We want our freedoms, but we also want someone else to assume all our responsibility. Naturally, government moves in the direction of taking your freedoms away and trying to redefine them or obscure how your freedoms are removed, so that they can have responsibility. And anytime someone argues, these days, we defer to argument from authority and ad hominem almost immediately where possible, rather than taking the merits of an argument on it's own grounds. At face value, this does not appear to be a bad thing, but i've caught doctors and nurses lying to patients, especially in regards to medication, yet if you try to argue or reason with someone, they'll often blow you off for not being a doctor (fortunately for meds, most of the time i can grab authoritative data for the most dangerous of lies, but i've had people ignore that already, too). Well, notice i didn't call it a "choke hold," because it wasn't one. It's one of those things martial artists will pick up on pretty quicky: no air ways or bloodvessels were obstructed. It's head control. There's actually something about how turning someone's head makes them physically weaker, too. My boxing instructor (and he teaches wrestling and such as well) simplified it to "it's pretty hard to go where you aren't looking."

Autopsy revealed he died of a heart issue. Contrary to what the media tells you, "the other coroner" never actually performed an autopsy. There only was one autopsy, and he died of a dead combination of fentanyl, caffeine, COVID, Meth, and a few other things that together contributed to a rare condition called "excited delerium." I was skeptical of this term, too, until i looked it up. It's just a fancy way of saying "someone works themselves into a heart attack." George Floyd's fate was set in stone before he got out of the police car, because they had a hell of a time getting him in (they pulled him out and put the pressure on him so they could call an ambulance). This is all in the leaked bodycam footage. There's actually alot of other famous cases of this. Some believe Eric Garner was one of these cases, but it's hard to tell.

As for the word game, well, i don't particularly think they care. Almost all of this is playing on emotions and sensationalism. While, indeed it's possible, the idea of a cop intentionally killing someone in broad daylight with a bunch of onlookers, isn't exactly logical, especially in our current society. It should immediately be viewed with much skepticism, no matter what things appear to be. Of course, we don't question things, anymore.

With the way judges have been acting as of late, on these sort of issues and others, who knows what's possible anymore.