Juana Garcia/The Cougar

Last year when former president Donald Trump was banned from several social media platforms, many began accusing those social media companies of infringing on Trump’s free speech. However, tech companies are using their own free speech to deter the spread of harmful misinformation. 

The issue of granting corporations free speech is a debate many legal scholars and politicians are having to this day. The issue is not as obvious as determining whether or not social media corporations are violating free speech. 

Currently, the Supreme Court case of FEC v. Citizens United declares within its ruling that only government organizations cannot restrict others’ first amendment rights apart from certain instances. 

This means that private corporations can create rules that prevent certain political speech from being allowed on their site through their terms of service and other means. 

While some may argue that it is unfair for private corporations to be exempt from the First Amendment, this also has beneficial effects. 

It can prevent the spread of misinformation online, such as Twitter banning Trump for writing false statements about the 2020 election. Limiting speech can also prevent extremist political actors from advocating for violence.

One of the greatest benefits of private tech companies regulating speech is that they can assess the legitimacy of accounts. Social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have continuously come under fire for allowing misinformation to spread from bot accounts, despite the companies’ best efforts to try and deter it.

However, if the First Amendment were to be enforced upon private companies, a precedent would be established in further cases where companies would not be able to censor false claims. This would be especially damaging during an age of mass misinformation campaigns. 

Tech companies would likely not be able to censor fraudulent accounts or censor extremist, inflammatory or violent content. Tech companies would be compelled by the government to allow for all speech in media. This would take the free speech away from the companies themselves and any sort of political advocacy they do would be hindered. 

The absence of a First Amendment in private companies allows for tech corporations to try and combat misinformation, extremist political violence and robot accounts. Striking down this precedent set in the Citizens United case would only create more problems for the fight against misinformation.

JJ Caceres is a political science freshman who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Social media companies limiting speech helps prevent misinformation” was originally posted on The Cougar

Gerald Sastra/The Cougar

After the infamous slap at the recent Academy Awards, Will Smith is now banned from the awards ceremonies for 10 years. While this may be understandable to some, Hollywood and the film industry should focus on shunning predators and abusers, rather than men defending their wives.

The shock over Smith slapping Chris Rock led to a bunch of discourse on how it should be handled. Many were saying that Smith was in the right for slapping Rock since Rock was making fun of Jada Pinkett Smith. Some were saying that Smith shouldn’t have used violence to do so. 

Some think that Smith needs to be punished and that’s exactly what is happening. Not only has he been banned from the Academy Awards, but Netflix canceled his upcoming project “Bright 2.” 

A lot of celebrities have been criticizing Smith and it’s understandable. One may not have liked Rock’s jokes about his wife being bald or thought they were inappropriate, which they were considering she has alopecia. 

That said, many don’t like violence and didn’t think Smith handled it well. However, it’s strange to see the uproar against Smith when Hollywood has a lot of other questionable characters, yet rarely holds them accountable. 

Mark Wahlberg is an American actor who has consistently been working in the industry despite having a history of racist hate crimes. In the 1980s, teenage Wahlberg committed racially motivated violence multiple times and even served some jail time. 

In one instance, he chased after Black children, threw rocks at them, threatened to kill them and yelled racial slurs. The next day, he did roughly the same thing again to a different set of Black children. 

He also physically attacked two Vietnamese men and called them racial pejoratives while high on PCP. He only served 45 days in prison for this attack.

Some may say that this was a long time ago and he was so young, but it is not normal at all for a teenager to have committed any hate crimes, let alone three. Yet, Wahlberg still consistently gets work despite having a very violent and racist history. 

Roman Polanski is another person who should have been shunned long ago. Polanski is known for directing movies like “Rosemary’s Baby” and “Chinatown” but is also known for raping a 13-year-old girl in the late 1970s. 

He left the U.S. to avoid prison time but that didn’t stop him from continuing to win American film awards from abroad. It wasn’t until 2018, over 40 years later since he was charged, that the academy kicked him out. 

The academy took four decades to kick a well-known child molester. This isn’t surprising as Harvey Weinstein was known for his harmful sexual behavior in Hollywood for years before he was arrested. A long list of Hollywood stars like Ben Affleck and Quintin Tarantino allegedly knew about his behavior and yet nothing was done about it. 

It’s worth mentioning that all these men mentioned are white and weren’t held accountable until the very end. And yet, Smith had action taken against him despite not having a history of abuse.

Hollywood was very quick to punish Will Smith after the slap but is very slow to shun people with racist, violent and predatory pasts. It’s time for the film industry to hold actual dangerous people accountable.

Anna Baker is an English senior who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Hollywood needs to hold abusers accountable” was originally posted on The Cougar

Santiago Gaughan/The Cougar

Many people are finding that working nine hours a day, five days a week is not a fulfilling life to live. When working nine to five, people are living to work, not working to live. There needs to be a reconstruction of America’s working hours that reflects the shift in employees’ needs. 

People have already been working from home since the beginning of the pandemic. Despite this massive change, the hours at one’s job have stayed the same. 

Working long hours contributes to stress, inadequate sleep and lower productivity. Working as many hours as a nine to five job requires does not allow sufficient flexibility. This forces employees to prioritize work over free time or risk losing their jobs.

“I don’t like (the nine to five workday),” said public relations freshman Alexia Aguilar. “I feel like there should be more flexibility with the workday as it causes a lot of issues.” 

Many people, especially young people like Aguilar, are realizing they do not want to spend their lives working for a job that limits their freedom and has more control over their lives than they do. 

During the pandemic, people were able to work from home, but many employees had to deal with managers looking over them to make sure they were getting the work done. In fact, there was an 87 percent increase in the creation of monitoring apps like ActivTrak, Hubstaff and Interguard, which all have varying degrees of surveillance techniques like taking snapshots of employees’ screens and saving search history.

The micro-managing of employees is not helpful to their productivity nor does it make them enjoy their work. It does the exact opposite. About 70-85 percent of workers have said their job performance and morale were negatively affected by micromanagement. 

On the other hand, a small project called STAR was created by the company Results-Only Work Environment to test how well employees performed with little to no interference from management. This includes choosing where, when and how their employees decided to work. It led to amazing results.

After six months, the employees were happier with their work, experienced less burnout and their production skyrocketed. 

With that in mind, employees thrive when they are allowed to make decisions over different aspects of their work that are traditionally decided by their managers. The freedom employees get when they decide when to get their work done also allows them to have time to do other things that make them happy.

Once employees no longer have to sacrifice living life for their work, the working culture in America can no longer be deemed one of the most stressful in the world. It’s time to change the nine to five workday. 

Cindy Rivas Alfaro is a journalism freshman who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Nine to five work culture needs to end” was originally posted on The Cougar

Juana Garcia/The Cougar

As the invasion of Ukraine rages on, President Joe Biden has rightfully pointed out that Vladimir Putin’s invasion led to high gas prices in the U.S. However, Biden has oddly shifted the blame to oil companies, which he stated were guilty of price gouging. This idea contradicts his narrative, only serving to further divide the country during a time of geopolitical crisis.

Price gouging is when companies take advantage of high demand caused by significant geopolitical or national emergencies to charge high prices and generate a profit. If Biden’s original explanation for high prices was that it stemmed from the invasion of Ukraine and the lack of supply caused by the pandemic, it wouldn’t make sense to say oil companies are to be directly blamed.

If these prices are caused by the Russian invasion and following sanctions, this means oil companies struggle to keep up with demand and are forced to increase prices due to low supply in order to balance.

It’s important to note that the percentage of oil exports coming from Russia into the U.S. is significantly lower than the percentage of Russian oil entering Europe., There is a difference of 8 percent in the U.S. compared to 50 percent in Europe. Most of the American oil comes from Canada, other nations and Mexico. 

However, it’s unfair to say sanctioning Russian oil doesn’t have a significant effect on gas prices. The sanctioning of Russian oil and other assets increases prices across the U.S. and it does not make sense for Biden to point the finger at oil companies to claim the raised prices are the result of price gouging.

Additionally, the price of gas had been steadily increasing since 2021.

With 2021 serving as a recovery year for most countries around the world after the start of the coronavirus pandemic, it serves to reason that it had a significant role to play in the recent high prices as well. 

An accusation of price gouging with little to no evidence has serious ramifications for political partisanship. Biden’s comments accusing oil companies of price gouging only further divides Democrats and Republicans on the issue of gas prices, since Republicans typically favor oil companies more than Democrats.

This hurts any hope in trying to address and discuss the negative impacts of oil supply shortages and how to mitigate them in a productive nonpartisan manner. 

It is during times of crisis that leaders need to be cognizant of the effects of their words. 

President Biden’s comments regarding price gouging have only deterred any meaningful conversation from occurring on how to create an economic recovery plan following the pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war. 

JJ Caceres is a political science freshman who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“High gas prices are not just due to price gouging” was originally posted on The Cougar

Juana Garcia/The Cougar

Many people are now quicker to discuss how problematic they deem certain media to be. Some may push back against this and say media doesn’t need to conform to morals or automatically influence people to do bad things. While it’s understandable not to want to critique the movies you like, it’s important to acknowledge media can affect people, and therefore is not above relevant criticism. 

The idea that media can affect behavior shouldn’t be a super radical claim. In American schools, students study how Nazi Germany used media to convince the public to believe false propaganda. Students also often study propaganda from the USSR.

Believing that propaganda works may imply that media can affect behavior. While not all media is straight-up propaganda, it can still influence someone’s beliefs. 

A major argument of media’s influence in the past two decades has been in regards to video games causing violence. Every time there’s a mass shooting in this country, which is unfortunately all too often, some elected officials try to pin the blame on violent video games.

There have been 33 school shootings between 1980 and 2018 where more than one person was murdered. Out of all the shooters for those events, four of them liked video games. Teenage boys are the main audience for many video games, especially ones with guns. So, many people assume video games are the reason why these events occur. 

However, the scientific association between violence and games isn’t really there.

Violent art, in general, seems to be a common theme among mass murderers. A Secret Service and Department of Education report researched a number of school violence incidents. 24 percent of the perpetrators were interested in violent books, 12 percent liked games and 37 percent used writing to express their interest in violence.

Video games alone clearly do not cause violence, but there may be a connection between violent media, whether it be books or video games or real-life violence.

If Americans grow up in a world where they see violence all the time in media, it may desensitize them. This is especially true in younger children who, if desensitized at a developmental age, can end up becoming more aggressive if they see that as normal. 

This doesn’t mean video games always cause violence but violent media shouldn’t be totally dismissed as non-influential. That said, the aggressive claims that video games are harmful have led media influence discourse to become non-nuanced. Now people are quicker to be defensive about problematic media.

Some people may claim others can tell the difference between what’s real and what’s not. Therefore, it won’t necessarily buy into every problematic message in a piece of media. Most people probably can process fiction as it is and won’t have it affect their morals. But, that doesn’t mean media can never affect real life.

For example, Samsung claimed the Galaxy Tablet was influenced by the film “2001: A Space Odyssey.” “Jaws” led to people seeing sharks as inherently dangerous, which led to shark hunting that decimated populations. “Free Willy” influenced people to want to free the actual whale in the movie.

There are a lot of contentious discussions online as to whether certain problematic relationships in media can be harmful to show. This also applies to adults being romantic with minors, like in the film “Licorice Pizza.” 

While depicting a problematic relationship isn’t automatically bad, it can be questionable if a film acts as though it’s perfectly normal, as “Licorice Pizza” supposedly does. It sends a message to the audience that this kind of relationship between minors and adults is okay when, in reality, it’s not. 

Many people will still argue that a piece of media portraying a relationship with problematic dynamics as good is fine because viewers should be able to distinguish what is real and what isn’t. 

While in a perfect world, people shouldn’t be so easily influenced, it’s clear that media can have an effect. If a movie or game is pushing a heavily problematic message, then it should be allowed to be criticized because of the possibility to be influential. 

While the discourse has been poisoned by non-nuanced takes like “video games cause violence,” this doesn’t mean that people should act like media has no effect whatsoever. It’s important to acknowledge the power of media on society and critique it appropriately. 

Anna Baker is an English senior who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Media is influential, not above criticism” was originally posted on The Cougar

Juana Garcia/The Cougar

Medical marijuana is a drug used to treat a number of conditions but it is still heavily restricted in this country and state. However Texas should expand its availability in order to give patients the treatment they need.

There are many studies that show that medical marijuana, also known as medical cannabis, can be used to treat many medical conditions such as epilepsy and seizures, HIV/AIDs and Alzheimer’s disease and others. 

Despite being proven helpful in treating many medical conditions and being legalized in over 36 states and District of Columbia, medical marijuana is under restrictive legalization in many states, including Texas. 

In fact, Texas has some of the most restrictive laws for the use of medical marijuana. 

Texas’s Compassionate Use Program which was first passed in 2015 and later expanded in 2019 and 2021, allows the access to low levels of tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, in low measures. 

Last year the Texas legislature passed HB 1531, which expanded the prescription of the drug to include all forms of cancer, just not terminal, as well as the use for post-traumatic stress disorder. Although the house had voted to increase the THC levels to 5 percent, the senate brought it back down to 1 percent. 

Chronic pain was also not included in the bill, even though science has shown how effective marijuana can be for pain relief. 

Marijuana can be very effective for things like pain relief. Studies have shown that the substance may be a valid alternative for painkillers like opioids. Opioids can lead to addiction and marijuana is far less addictive, so legalizing it could be extremely helpful. 

Their guidelines are very rigid whereas in a state like California, medical marijuana can be used as long as people can prove their symptoms like back pain affect them negatively. 

Some may scoff at California’s looseness with its laws, but it allows more people to get access to treatment. 

The low THC levels are a problem as well. While low levels are useful for many people, many patients may need a higher dose. Most states have much higher percentages for medical marijuana THC content, usually in the fifteen percent range.

Restrictions on the levels of drugs can be a hurdle for doctors to provide their patients with the right care. The amount of medicine required by the patient should be set by doctors, not lawmakers. 

Texas’ program also only allows people to get their prescriptions from certain dispensaries and physicians. There are approximately only 254 doctors that can prescribe the use of medical cannabis, in a state with more than 29 million people. There is an unequal balance of doctors who can prescribe and the number of people who need medical marijuana. 

There are also delays in the prescriptions getting to the patients who need it. The various restrictions that such as wait time and cost, are leaving many Texans to still purchasing from illicit markets and importing these drugs from surrounding states, that have much better access laws.

The state also excludes many conditions such as chronic pain from its list of approved conditions. Chronic pain accompanies many different medical diagnoses so Texas may be leaving people out who could really benefit from medical cannabis. 

Full legalization of medical marijuana would not only be beneficial for those who need it to help treat medical conditions such as chronic pain but will help grow the economy by making more jobs. 

Atirikta Kumar is a journalism freshman who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Medical marijuana needs to be expanded in Texas” was originally posted on The Cougar

Juana Garcia/The Cougar

If the state of world politics over the past few decades has shown anything, it’s shown that the United Nations is in major need of some power. In other words, it’s time to revisit global federalism.

Global federalism refers to having a lawmaking entity at the global level to deal with worldwide problems that cannot be effectively solved on a smaller scale. 

The international system based entirely on diplomatic relations between nation-states is destined for continual shortcomings if not eventual collapse.

No better example remains than the Paris Agreement, which has demonstrably failed at sufficiently countering climate change. An outcome that shouldn’t be surprising since the agreement consisted not of legally binding requirements but rather only on the ever unreliable promises of politicians.

 According to the World Meteorological Organization, the planet is now on track to far exceed the 1.5 Celsius warming limit, a point which climate scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have marked as the limit beyond which the damage from warming will dramatically escalate.

 If things continue as they are now, the consequences will be a catastrophic loss of biodiversity, human life and economic output that will impact the people of all nations.

Similarly, despite over 100 U.N. resolutions condemning them, the Israeli government continues its reprehensible apartheid against Palestinians. This occurs as Ethiopia’s genocidal civil war, which has claimed up to 500,000 lives in the past 16 months, rages on, and Russia continues its fascistic expansionist efforts in Ukraine. 

All this while the lack of any global economic governance has incentivized a race to the bottom in national labor standards, worsened inequality, permitted large-scale tax avoidance and allowed long-term trade imbalances to persist.

When taken in tandem with the inability of the current system to deescalate the ever-growing global polarization in the competition between the U.S. and China and the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons, these facts should make it clear that the status quo is not acceptable.

The reality is that global problems require global solutions. In practical terms, this means that there is a need for current international structures to be transformed into ones that have some actual authority. 

However, this greater endowment of authority must also be accompanied by sufficient measures to ensure these institutions are transparent, democratic and only exercise power over issues that lower-level governments can’t properly handle.

Luckily, many ideas already exist for how this can become a reality. There are movements to democratize the U.N. by adding a permanent Global Citizens Assembly. Some activists and social scientists have advocated reforms to the U.N. charter that would create for it distinct, albeit limited, powers of taxation and international law enforcement. 

One approach could be to revisit an idea that economist Yanis Varoufakis has recently revived. The idea is to create an international unit of currency exchange. Once accepted, this could be used to penalize activities that violate international law. 

These institutions would then be able to create policies that could solve many of the aforementioned issues facing the world. For instance, these policies could mandate basic labor and environmental standards, establish a global carbon tax, create powerful incentives for nations to reduce their trade imbalances and so on.

With a new level of democracy at the global level, humanity would be able to enter another era. An era where conflict can finally be quelled, where the governments of the world are no longer devising how they can best dominate, exploit and destroy other nations. 

Instead, governments could refocus their full energies on solving the genuine problems humans face, and where people of all nations would be able to communicate, travel and trade more freely than ever before. For this, global federalism is necessary. 

Micah Erfan is an economics freshman who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Global federalism is necessary to solve world problems” was originally posted on The Cougar

Juana Garcia/The Cougar

From birth, children are usually placed into two binaries of gender that continue to follow them into adulthood. However, children should be raised gender-neutral as it eliminates gender bias and allows them to explore themselves without harmful restrictions. 

Some people question their gender growing up and struggle to find their true selves if not given the tools or opportunities to explore their gender. They may often grapple with mental health as well. Often, children may be told to stick to their gender roles. For example, parents may tell male children not to play with dolls and tell female children that they’ll grow up to be mothers. 

It is important to make a distinction when it comes to raising a child in a gender-neutral environment. The goal should not be to eliminate gender, but to create an environment where gender is not a determining factor in what a child can or cannot do.

According to research, children who are raised in a traditional feminine or masculine bedroom decorated by their parents are more than likely to reflect the same gender views as their parents. 

Many of these views of gender can be harmful such as toxic masculinity, which involves boys suppressing their emotions in order to be tough and being violent to show power. It often rewards behavior like catcalling and seeing women as objects.

Common sayings among parents can often be “be a man” and “you hit like a girl” towards their sons. This idea that boys must be strong and stoic is harmful to their development and can lead to depression, anger issues and emotional outbursts since they were never allowed to express themselves because of their gender. 

Raising a child to be gender-neutral works to eliminate harmful concepts like this that reinforce stereotypes. 

Some might argue that children will be confused in the future or not have a concrete concept of themselves. However, that is far from the truth. 

Time Magazine wrote about a child named Zoomer who was raised in a gender-neutral environment. Zoomer has an advanced sense of gender that many adults do not possess. They understand that genitalia does not equate to gender and are inclusive of all peoples despite their appearances. 

Their gender-neutral upbringing has allowed them not to view gender as an obstacle to one’s potential which is a belief that many Americans lack while growing up. 

With Florida’s Republican Party signing the “Don’t Say Gay” law and 15 states prohibiting transgender youth from receiving gender-affirming medical care, traditional views on gender only work to harm LGBTQ children instead of helping them be true to themselves. 

In order to allow for a more gender-inclusive society, it should start with parents raising their kids to not be limited by the gendered restrictions that are embedded in society. 

By raising children in a gender-neutral environment, their generation will not be afraid to be themselves as well as accept everyone regardless of their gender. 

Cindy Rivas Alfaro is a journalism freshman who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Gender-neutral parenting should be the norm” was originally posted on The Cougar

Juana Garcia/The Cougar

The great city of Houston, the fourth-largest city in the United States that is home to NASA and has been dubbed as the energy capital of the world, is facing a major internal issue that larger cities before it have all appeared to have resolved. Houston’s public transit is awful and needs to be fixed. 

While the Metro Rail system and bus routes in place provided rides for millions of people annually pre-pandemic, it is very limited in terms of accessibility. 

With the rise of gas prices currently plaguing the country, it is imperative now more than ever to provide ample transportation for lower-income citizens who cannot afford to fill up their tanks weekly.

Getting around is not easy for some people, especially in a city that is 665 square miles. Its metropolitan area comprises 2.3 million people. Of this large population, roughly 21.2 percent of it lives well below the poverty line. 

For such a big area, however, there are only three Metro Rail lines that stretch across about 23 miles of the inner-610 loop. The red line barely reaches outside of this loop, missing many vital communities such as Sunnyside, whose average median income of $28,000 renders it one of the most impoverished area of Houston. This keeps communities from being able to use this more affordable option. 

Adequate public transportation can provide a plethora of new job opportunities within the city, as well as make it easier for people to carry out daily tasks that could benefit them in the long run. Those who are primarily lower-income, as well as college students who struggle financially, may find the rail a more reliable mode of transit.

The buses in Houston suffering from delays could mean being late to an interview and not getting the job, or missing vital classroom instruction that could contribute to their future.

“I live an hour away, and I have to go to school almost every day,” said psychology junior Angie Moe. “I would much prefer to spend my money on food than on gas. I only spend about $15 on the Metro compared to $80 or more weekly on gas if I were to drive to school.”

Fortunately, this issue is being addressed at the federal level. The Biden administration’s recent strides to improve the country’s infrastructure has put forth provisions to improve public transit systems in many major cities. 

In addition to the $137 million being granted to the Houston Metro system in order to rejuvenate its day-to-day operations after being hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic, the administration plans on distributing another $7.5 billion dollars to transit agencies. They hope to encourage these agencies to invest in more efficient, low-emissions electric buses. 

According to Metro, there are future intentions to expand the rail by about 16 miles. It would extend south into the Missouri City and Sugar Land area, and north into North Shepherd. This project would cost the city about $2.10 billion. 

This necessary extension would give thousands of people greater access to the inner city, which could help them build a better life. However, the project has not yet taken off, and there are no plans in discussion to add more lines east or west.

With the current state of the U.S. economy, access to public transportation should be near the top of the list of priorities. Not everyone has the privilege of owning an efficiently-running car and being able to maintain it, and it is time that the city of Houston’s public transit improves and the city moves away from its over-reliance on cars.

Michael King is a political science sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Houston’s public transit is insufficient and detrimental” was originally posted on The Cougar

Juana Garcia/The Cougar

Every gamer has a preference on whether to play on a computer or a gaming console. However, PC gaming is better than console gaming because of its customization, improved gaming experience and convenience of being a computer.

The first reason for gaming on a computer is that it allows one to have maximum performance. A gamer always wants the best performance when playing and there is no better way than to game on a PC. 

Playing on a console does not allow the user to customize the console as it does on a PC. Because of this, consoles do not allow any limits to be pushed while gaming. 

Gaming console users do not have the luxury to pick which parts to buy, they just buy the console and are ready to game. Many prefer this method of gaming as it is much easier to do and requires no production from the consumer. This is different when building a full PC setup. 

However, with a PC, one can customize the battery, graphics card, processor and storage in order to have the best experience. The player can’t do that with an Xbox or PlayStation. They’re stuck with the specifications that come with it, even if they don’t like them.

One can also customize what keys you use to game on a PC, which usually can’t be done on a console.

One issue with PC gaming is that Xbox and PlayStation also often have exclusives only for their system. A strictly PC gamer would, unfortunately, miss out on these. However, these exclusives are few and far between.

Furthermore, there are many great games on PC that can’t be played on consoles such as “League of Legends.”

Building a really good PC setup can be a little more expensive compared to consoles. However, a gaming computer is a two-in-one. It can be a capable device for things like internet use and also great for playing.

Whether people should get a PC or a console depends on a lot of things. Building a PC does involve learning a lot more about the tech involved and can even be more expensive depending on the quality wanted. 

However, a PC gives one a lot more freedom for the person to choose what they want for their gaming experience. This in turn can give the gamer the best playing experience for themselves. 

Jason Perez is a journalism and political science senior who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“PC gaming is better than console gaming” was originally posted on The Cougar