Quote:
Originally Posted by repulse
Maybe this is just me, and I can't quite put my finger exactly on why, but something about calling this an anti-poker editorial and the way the comments are playing out doesn't feel quite right to me. The article makes no mention of poker and doesn't allude to poker specifically at all.
|
I've been getting comments like this on my Facebook wall recently (though not about this article). Perhaps some of us are starting to believe the world -- including gaming opponents -- sees poker as distinct from
gambling. Sorry, but we're not quite there yet. The author was clearly including poker in his diatribe. He didn't mention poker by name because he likely sees no distinction.
He says, "Far more ominously, there’s a move afoot in Congress to legalize Web betting across the country. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other powerful lawmakers are pushing to repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006." Aside from the LOL at calling Reid/Kyl a repeal of UIGEA, as the bill itself licenses just poker, it's fairly clear he's talking about poker.
Quote:
|
Furthermore, the article is explicitly concerned about the damage of compulsive gambling -- and the author even acknowledges that most gamblers do so in a healthy way, more than most authors would. The article is not giving a great context for arguments about how poker is different from casino games.
|
I think he's simply acknowledging the reality of where this debate has moved. While he isn't trying the dubious claims of Chad Hills, he draws the same conclusions....in his opinion it needs to be banned for all.
Quote:
|
Now, I don't doubt for a moment that, most likely, this author includes poker in their treatment of gambling with little or no distinction between any differences.
|
Lots of our opponents see no distinction.
Quote:
|
I get that we would want to make our voice heard here, regardless of direct intent. I just don't think there's necessarily an effective way to do that on an article that doesn't call out poker at all and has a context that doesn't fit our issue well enough.
|
The sole focus of the editorial is to encourage opposition to the Reid/Kyl poker licensing bill. That's some serious direct intent.
Quote:
|
I dunno, did anyone else feel this way too? I'd feel differently if the article referred to poker specifically at all. Given that it hasn't, I feel like rallying people to "blast the comment section" is a bit much and might not yield positive results.
|
I doubt many (or any) non-poker players read that article and deduced that poker was excluded.
I do appreciate your viewpoint here and thank you for asking me the question. I appreciate the opportunity to share with everyone my thoughts on this.
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
