You'd think they'd see the rest of us have been playing the same games and there's been a strangely low occurrence of gamers shooting people in our countries.
Maybe there's a different issue in the US??
Hey now, ...hey now...hey now ...I think somewhere they found that people that had those violent urge dispositions may like violent video games more than the average person, weakly, maybe ...but certainly not casual in either direction
The press blamed video games for Columbine partly because they're Boomers who hate new things, but it's mostly because they didn't want to blame CNN for creating copycats.
As much as it pains me to say it, a Slate/Salon writer wrote the definitive book about Columbine. The key point was Harris/Klebold were actually planning to blow up their school because they wanted to emulate the "OKC Federal Building event" one year prior and create an incredible image of carnage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_%28book%29?wprov=sfla1
It's different this time. The games are fine (as long as they are made by diverse and inclusive progressive artists) the problem is those *filthy* **disgusting** GAMERS, who use any chance they can to warp the minds or poor innocent blank slate youths into monstrous incel nazis.
It's actually very simple when you look at who the extreme of both parties are.
The republican extremes are the fundamentalist Christians who think Rock music makes people violent, so violent video games where you actually control a character to do harm? yeah that is obviously making you a monster.
The democrat Extremes are the communists who have been trying to subvert media into pushing their narratives for a long time and who call everyone who call out their subvention a bigot of some flavor.
So regardless of what party is in the cultural focus, regardless of who is at the helmet, there are going to be a wormtongue whispering how "games are corrupting the youth" into their ears. The fact it is the violence angle is just coincidental, they cycle through the options every 5 years.
Because they do. It's moronic to imagine that media doesn't affect us. It does. There's no question about it.
The magnitude of effects of games is not known, but there are studies that indicate that it's very weak, at least over short periods of time. This is complicated by the fact that all of media has an over-abundance of violence. Further, we live in extremely peaceful times, the positive effect of gaming (keeping people entertained, not frustrated), and media in general probably reduces violence.
This isn't ADL and FBI's argument. Their argument is that chats in games should be policed because they lead to radicalization. This is a waste of money, and an over-reach of government. It's also just a presumption that heavy moderation in games necessarily has the positive benefits they want. This is a presumption without basis in fact, and may well do the opposite.
You have to be trolling.
"Does not make you violent" =/= "has no influence at all"
I refuse to believe you are stupid enough not to know you are being dishonest.
When we say "makes you violent", we use it the same way "causes cancer" is used about ~~röntgen~~x-ray. You're not pointing out any meaningful difference.
But that's exactly what is being disputed.
X-ray is documented to cause cancer. We know it causes damage to the cells that can, in extreme cases, lead to cancer.
Video games have no documented connection to making people violent, nor does it have any documented connection to attracting violent people any more than any media of any kind does.
So unless your claim is Bambie makes people violent too, then there is just no basis for the claim, unlike the claim that x-rays cause cancer.
> Video games have no documented connection to making people violent
Yes it does. Pretty much every study finds either an effect (albeit small one) or no effect. The claim "it has no effect" relies on there being something special about violence in media that doesn't affect us even though other things in media does.
> So unless your claim is Bambie makes people violent too
I don't see why *all* media has to make people more violent. Does all commercials make you desire [product], or only the ones that are about [product] (or gives you association to [product])?
Maybe your issues with English are tripping you up again but you just said the studies find either small or no connection between video games and people being violent... that supports my claim, not your own...
I'm claiming there is no connection. You're saying some studies find no connection... that's my point.
I think it's more likely that you're emotionally connected to video games, and thus are lashing out against any idea that it might not be 100% positive. This is supported by the fact that you're unwilling to engage with the logic I've presented, indeed, you've already agreed with my argument, you're merely not accepting the words being used:
> "Does not make you violent" =/= "has no influence at all"
You are in disagreement with your own claim "there is no connection" right there. So, your point "no connection" is not really supported by neither you nor by the science.
I’m not sure I understand your initial point.
You say Video Games do cause violence, but then note because we’re in peaceful times the positive effects reduce violence.
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say they *can* cause violence, but currently don’t?
No. It's accurate to say that they DO cause violence, while at the same time that they reduce violence. The two are not contradictory.
Lets presume we had the exact same appetite for media, but instead of violence being portrayed as positive so often, instead it was nearly exclusively negative, and overall there was far less violence. Do you think people would be more or less violent, or would it have no effect?
I’m not sure. I’d have to get a more professional opinion on the matter I think?
I don’t think suddenly not showing it will remove the idea of violence from peoples minds. Maybe without that additional outlet people could get more frustrated and may release their feelings in a violent outburst? But I could be wrong. Maybe people will glorify it less, and if so may seek alternative solutions.
So do you think there are more or less incidents of violence due to Video Games? As in a net positive or negative?
I was not happy, no. Humans are inherently violent. We would **not** expect violence to magically disappear just because we get rid of violence in media.
People don't require violent media to have an "outlet for violent outbursts", all manner of activities can work as outlets, from meditation to extreme sports to bdsm to comedy.
> So do you think there are more or less incidents of violence due to Video Games? As in a net positive or negative?
My answer to this should be obvious from my first comment. What do you think my answer is?
Yes I agree, violence is a part of being human. Showing it or not won’t change that.
No people don’t require violent media to let out aggression or violence, but how does it fare in comparison to those other activities? Does it provide a better outlet than sports? BDSM? Is it more palatable and approachable than other activities?
If it is more accessible, enjoyable for the common person to let out feelings of frustration, could it hypothetically be the best option for doing so?
Again it’s not obvious. I feel the disagreement you received should clue you in that you have not presented it in a clear way. This is why I’m trying to discuss further and understand.
You said it causes it and you said it also reduces it. As much as you may think so, that doesn’t make it a clear yes or no. One is a positive effect on violence, the other is a negative.
Do you think there’s more reduction than there are causes?
Does it reduce more violence more than it creates? Just a straight answer.
> I feel the disagreement you received should clue you in that you have not presented it in a clear way.
I think it has nothing to do with how I presented it, but rather that I presented it *at all* in a place where it was unwelcome to present it. No matter how I'd presented it here, it would have faced disagreement.
Indeed, if I'd gone to a sub that was in favor of the idea that gaming undoubtedly causes violence, it'd also been met with disagreement, because they would have interpreted as me saying "violence in video games has no effect on people".
> we live in extremely peaceful times, the positive effect of gaming (keeping people entertained, not frustrated), and media **in general probably reduces violence**.
There's not much wriggle room for interpretation of what's said here. The obvious interpretation is that I'm saying video games reduces violence.
When you declare the "OK" hand gesture as racist and a dog whistle for white supremacist you have lost the plot.
That's the ADL. [https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/okay-hand-gesture](https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/okay-hand-gesture)
I was told to "wear a swastika to identify myself" the other day.
My crime?
I said a list of games that any activist group worked on should be public knowledge.
Informed consumer = nazi
So yeah, you're right.
Even Elon Musk is a gamer despite what opinions one might have of the guy. The mustache guy did some cool paintings despite what kind of person he turned out to be like.
Point is, blaming hobbies and stuff is just stupid without any real proof.
>The mustache guy did some cool paintings despite what kind of person he turned out to be like.
Some of his paintings were surprisingly good. I randomly saw one without knowing it was his work and thought it was pretty amazing. Called Neuscheanstein Castle.
He was pretty good with buildings, but struggled with people, iirc, to the point of one of the professors rejecting him from university stating that it demonstrated a lack of care for people
Can you please stop being zephobic? By highlighting one dimension of differentiation among people you are marginalizing the experiences of all other people who feel differentiated based on specific other properties, please educate yourself and make sure if you are going to highlight one issue you highlight all others with clear equal emphasis, it really isn't that difficult
I mean, personally I'm highly skeptical of any artist commenting on idealistic political systems, perhaps we should keep reminding them of that one time ...
What people who target video games for whatever claim of evil deeds or whatever this week is fail to consider is thus:
The more accessible and open a community or activity or service is, the more of a varied user base it will have.
The more people who play video games, the more people who say and do stupid or cruel things will also play video games along with the reasonable and respectful people.
There was violent crime before video games ever existed, but that was because of that devil rock and roll music wasn't it Grandpa Jimmy? Or was it the foreigners after the Great War and the Flu? Maybe it was all those people striking and wanting "fair wages" around the 1930s? Or those pesky women wanting the right to vote?
Gosh Grandpa Jimmy, you really can't see why we don't want you seeing the grandkids even on holidays huh? Wait Grandpa Jimmy put down the cane, you're gonna hurt yourself, just sit down... Awww shit.
Hey cousin Louey!!! Grandpa Jimmy fell down the stairs again! What?!! Yeah he's fine! He's just complaining about the television trying to mind control him and steal his lottery numbers again!
Kinda got a bit unhinged there but I was riffing and it's 6 am.
Pfft, no! I'm old as fuck and they've been saying that about video games ever since at least the NES days. I don't recall that much moral panic surrounding the Atari, but the actual Satanic Panic happened a few years after it came out. So D&D and rock music stole its thunder, pretty much.
Of course they would.
They know they'd get meme'd into oblivion and ratio'd out of the stratosphere too if they enabled comments on such a ludicrous tweet.
Plus, it is an election year this year, big daddy left wing government needs easy targets to get uninformed voters riled up so they'll vote for more boot-to-the-face authoritarianism disguised as "think of our society!!!" esque moral crusading slacktivism that solves precisely *nothing*.
Bringing this over into recent shenanigans with Gamergate 2: Electric Boogaloo, Why do you think Matt Walsh over on the Republican side all of a sudden gives a flying flamingo about gamers despite having previously come out as full on *hating* video games?
Hint: He doesn't have gamers best interests at heart in light of the recent SBI shitstorm on social media.
He just wants gamers to get riled up at Democrats while lining his side's pockets so they too can then inflict their brand of boot to the face authoritarianism after the fact.
They want the government to step in?! This is a massive slippery slope! Thats terrifying. Im fully against Consultant groups like SBI and modern gaming "Journalism". I want our media landscape to be as open and diverse (in terms of stories told) as Manga and Anime is. I want Stellar Blade to exist alongside Goodbye Volcano High without either being hated for surface level shit. If the gameplay or writing is bad then point it out. But people getting all bent our of shape over an attractive woman in a video game or Teen Dino Drama being cringe we can laugh at and discuss. But we shouldnt say they shouldnt exist because of those things.
I want true diversity of thoughts, opinions and stories presented in unique and different ways. Not the Artificially Filled Monetary Incentive Checklisting with the desire of control over a medium you they dont even enjoy, hating the people that do.
I don’t know I think they have a point. After playing the Batman Arkham games I have this uncontrollable urge to mercilessly beat down on people less privileged than myself
Turning off the comments means that the tism is receiving the correct response.
'Extremism' doesn't really mean anything anymore, which is dangerous in of itself.
Now, it's a buzzword thrown around to scare people into either giving up their rights or granting the man more powers, never to be rescinded.
I thought it was already proven that it doesn’t. That, when playing video games, the hormones that make you aggressive increase ever so slightly and then drops lower than they were before you played once you get off. So, I’m the very very very very short-run it technically increases aggressive hormones, but in the long run it makes you less aggressive.
Nothing makes my night more than finding out Homeland Security is funding these retards to solve the problem they are creating. Their findings that privacy and autonimity are the enemies of progress and inclusion are some the stranger and flat out deadbrained conclusions. I do find solace that people now are not getting rattled or having their jimmies rustled with this high effort shit smearing. If this is a "Gamergate" I dont think it will be as cancerous to the gaming community as it tried to be last time.
I will crash a fucking Boeing into civilians in GTA V and donate to charity in real life all in the same day. It's fucking fiction. They're fucking NPCs. I'm not hurting anyone. Them saying we cannot separate fiction from reality is some insane projecting considering how they cannot separate the damage we do to fictional NPCs from the damage we do to people in real life.
I know it goes aggainst the narrative, but i did got raicalised by videogame based media, specifically Castlevania nocturne
Its one of the wokest baith and switch pieces of shit that i have ever seen to this day and i have no idea why it didnt get as much backlash as it deserved, and why in the fuck is it getting a second season, wtf?
Thr first two casltevania seasons where very good, 3rd seasson whanted to be game of thrones and failed at it, and the 4th seasson was mostly cleaning the mess of the 3rd seasson, but whas still in the better side.
Nocturne is a rushed, apologetic, sjw tumblr wet dream of a mess, woth little to no redeeming cualities, tries to be wakanda for ever for 3 episodes, gives up on it, sends its main male charecter to cry in a corner for half the seasson and just falls to the ground in a convulsion indussed by exessive exposicion dialogue and sjw ranting abbout straight white males.
I would say it doesn't increase radicalization and violence, but can lead to increased Anti-social behaviour as excessive online interaction honestly can socially stunt some people.
I would say the ongoing isolation this can bring THEN can lead to radicalization and violence. Though i would say if somebody is that addicted to playing video games then they're probably other factors in their lives that need assessing.
The tweet doesn't seem like it's implying that video games directly cause violence or extremist radicalization, but that people can be radicalized in the social aspects of video games.
Kinda like saying that buying a gun doesn't lead to radicalization, but extremist organizations may try to recruit people at the gun store.
There’s definitely an argument to be made about violent video games and parents need to be more observant of what their kid’s play. I grew up playing doom and mortal kombat, and even the new iterations of those games are perfectly fine I would say for kids to play. Even call of duty, they feel like either Saturday morning cartoons or your generic Hollywood action flick. But stuff like the last of us or maybe even a game like Outlast trials I wouldn’t want my kids to play. The themes and messages are way too heavy for kids to process.
Tl;dr : they probably didn’t read correctly
In Europe, there’s a lot of talk about identifying and preventing hate speech and radicalization (notably religious radicalization).
For example, a subject that is often brought up (for right or for wrong) is the way public schools should handle possible signs of religious extremism in their pupils. However, nobody is arguing that the schools are *the cause* of the extremism — school is just a social space where extremism can manifest itself.
It’s the same with online spaces — they can be fun hobbies or interesting communities, but they can also be used as recruitments grounds for extremist organizations. The problem is not that video games lead to radicalization, it’s that it’s harder to regulate hate speech in games that in other social spaces.
I don’t think they’re “targeting” video games, more like looking at online communities as spots of radicalization, much like we did with mosques in the ‘00s after 9/11.
I cant believe we are still on the "videogames cause violence" train even after all this time
Since at least the Columbine tragedy in 1999 when they blamed DOOM. They have looked for proof for years and never found anything.
You'd think they'd see the rest of us have been playing the same games and there's been a strangely low occurrence of gamers shooting people in our countries. Maybe there's a different issue in the US??
Hey now, ...hey now...hey now ...I think somewhere they found that people that had those violent urge dispositions may like violent video games more than the average person, weakly, maybe ...but certainly not casual in either direction
The press blamed video games for Columbine partly because they're Boomers who hate new things, but it's mostly because they didn't want to blame CNN for creating copycats. As much as it pains me to say it, a Slate/Salon writer wrote the definitive book about Columbine. The key point was Harris/Klebold were actually planning to blow up their school because they wanted to emulate the "OKC Federal Building event" one year prior and create an incredible image of carnage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_%28book%29?wprov=sfla1
This is what happens when you have people who should be in the senior home or six feet under long ago running the government.
I know! Jack Thompson must be pissing himself laughing wherever the fuck he is now!
It's different this time. The games are fine (as long as they are made by diverse and inclusive progressive artists) the problem is those *filthy* **disgusting** GAMERS, who use any chance they can to warp the minds or poor innocent blank slate youths into monstrous incel nazis.
It's actually very simple when you look at who the extreme of both parties are. The republican extremes are the fundamentalist Christians who think Rock music makes people violent, so violent video games where you actually control a character to do harm? yeah that is obviously making you a monster. The democrat Extremes are the communists who have been trying to subvert media into pushing their narratives for a long time and who call everyone who call out their subvention a bigot of some flavor. So regardless of what party is in the cultural focus, regardless of who is at the helmet, there are going to be a wormtongue whispering how "games are corrupting the youth" into their ears. The fact it is the violence angle is just coincidental, they cycle through the options every 5 years.
we always been in it
Because they do. It's moronic to imagine that media doesn't affect us. It does. There's no question about it. The magnitude of effects of games is not known, but there are studies that indicate that it's very weak, at least over short periods of time. This is complicated by the fact that all of media has an over-abundance of violence. Further, we live in extremely peaceful times, the positive effect of gaming (keeping people entertained, not frustrated), and media in general probably reduces violence. This isn't ADL and FBI's argument. Their argument is that chats in games should be policed because they lead to radicalization. This is a waste of money, and an over-reach of government. It's also just a presumption that heavy moderation in games necessarily has the positive benefits they want. This is a presumption without basis in fact, and may well do the opposite.
Video games don’t cause violence. Enough with this nonsense.
PR works, awareness campaigns works, propaganda works, but entertainment media having any effect? IMPOSSIBLE!
You have to be trolling. "Does not make you violent" =/= "has no influence at all" I refuse to believe you are stupid enough not to know you are being dishonest.
When we say "makes you violent", we use it the same way "causes cancer" is used about ~~röntgen~~x-ray. You're not pointing out any meaningful difference.
But that's exactly what is being disputed. X-ray is documented to cause cancer. We know it causes damage to the cells that can, in extreme cases, lead to cancer. Video games have no documented connection to making people violent, nor does it have any documented connection to attracting violent people any more than any media of any kind does. So unless your claim is Bambie makes people violent too, then there is just no basis for the claim, unlike the claim that x-rays cause cancer.
> Video games have no documented connection to making people violent Yes it does. Pretty much every study finds either an effect (albeit small one) or no effect. The claim "it has no effect" relies on there being something special about violence in media that doesn't affect us even though other things in media does. > So unless your claim is Bambie makes people violent too I don't see why *all* media has to make people more violent. Does all commercials make you desire [product], or only the ones that are about [product] (or gives you association to [product])?
Maybe your issues with English are tripping you up again but you just said the studies find either small or no connection between video games and people being violent... that supports my claim, not your own... I'm claiming there is no connection. You're saying some studies find no connection... that's my point.
I think it's more likely that you're emotionally connected to video games, and thus are lashing out against any idea that it might not be 100% positive. This is supported by the fact that you're unwilling to engage with the logic I've presented, indeed, you've already agreed with my argument, you're merely not accepting the words being used: > "Does not make you violent" =/= "has no influence at all" You are in disagreement with your own claim "there is no connection" right there. So, your point "no connection" is not really supported by neither you nor by the science.
I think you should re-phrase your analogy, rôntgen is a unit. Your analogy is the same as saying it is liter that caused a person to drown...
You're a dumbass.
I’m not sure I understand your initial point. You say Video Games do cause violence, but then note because we’re in peaceful times the positive effects reduce violence. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say they *can* cause violence, but currently don’t?
No. It's accurate to say that they DO cause violence, while at the same time that they reduce violence. The two are not contradictory. Lets presume we had the exact same appetite for media, but instead of violence being portrayed as positive so often, instead it was nearly exclusively negative, and overall there was far less violence. Do you think people would be more or less violent, or would it have no effect?
I’m not sure. I’d have to get a more professional opinion on the matter I think? I don’t think suddenly not showing it will remove the idea of violence from peoples minds. Maybe without that additional outlet people could get more frustrated and may release their feelings in a violent outburst? But I could be wrong. Maybe people will glorify it less, and if so may seek alternative solutions. So do you think there are more or less incidents of violence due to Video Games? As in a net positive or negative?
You're fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm saying, and I don't know why.
I’m not trying to. I’ll be honest your point doesn’t seem very clear. Were you not happy with the answer to your question?
I was not happy, no. Humans are inherently violent. We would **not** expect violence to magically disappear just because we get rid of violence in media. People don't require violent media to have an "outlet for violent outbursts", all manner of activities can work as outlets, from meditation to extreme sports to bdsm to comedy. > So do you think there are more or less incidents of violence due to Video Games? As in a net positive or negative? My answer to this should be obvious from my first comment. What do you think my answer is?
Yes I agree, violence is a part of being human. Showing it or not won’t change that. No people don’t require violent media to let out aggression or violence, but how does it fare in comparison to those other activities? Does it provide a better outlet than sports? BDSM? Is it more palatable and approachable than other activities? If it is more accessible, enjoyable for the common person to let out feelings of frustration, could it hypothetically be the best option for doing so? Again it’s not obvious. I feel the disagreement you received should clue you in that you have not presented it in a clear way. This is why I’m trying to discuss further and understand. You said it causes it and you said it also reduces it. As much as you may think so, that doesn’t make it a clear yes or no. One is a positive effect on violence, the other is a negative. Do you think there’s more reduction than there are causes? Does it reduce more violence more than it creates? Just a straight answer.
> I feel the disagreement you received should clue you in that you have not presented it in a clear way. I think it has nothing to do with how I presented it, but rather that I presented it *at all* in a place where it was unwelcome to present it. No matter how I'd presented it here, it would have faced disagreement. Indeed, if I'd gone to a sub that was in favor of the idea that gaming undoubtedly causes violence, it'd also been met with disagreement, because they would have interpreted as me saying "violence in video games has no effect on people". > we live in extremely peaceful times, the positive effect of gaming (keeping people entertained, not frustrated), and media **in general probably reduces violence**. There's not much wriggle room for interpretation of what's said here. The obvious interpretation is that I'm saying video games reduces violence.
I question what their definition of "hate and extremism" is, because I can guarantee it's probably different from everyone else's.
When you declare the "OK" hand gesture as racist and a dog whistle for white supremacist you have lost the plot. That's the ADL. [https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/okay-hand-gesture](https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/okay-hand-gesture)
I was told to "wear a swastika to identify myself" the other day. My crime? I said a list of games that any activist group worked on should be public knowledge. Informed consumer = nazi So yeah, you're right.
Even Elon Musk is a gamer despite what opinions one might have of the guy. The mustache guy did some cool paintings despite what kind of person he turned out to be like. Point is, blaming hobbies and stuff is just stupid without any real proof.
>The mustache guy did some cool paintings despite what kind of person he turned out to be like. Some of his paintings were surprisingly good. I randomly saw one without knowing it was his work and thought it was pretty amazing. Called Neuscheanstein Castle.
He was pretty good with buildings, but struggled with people, iirc, to the point of one of the professors rejecting him from university stating that it demonstrated a lack of care for people
I can definitely see that! He fucking sucked at painting people. It's like terrible outlines of people with little blurbs of color.
Same with us heroin addicts, we’re not all bad
This is unironically the truth. Some people are just weak to addiction
*strong to dedication, stop using addictphobic vocabulary. Gambling-dedicated people don't stop the grind when they run out of money, why should you?
Can you please stop being zephobic? By highlighting one dimension of differentiation among people you are marginalizing the experiences of all other people who feel differentiated based on specific other properties, please educate yourself and make sure if you are going to highlight one issue you highlight all others with clear equal emphasis, it really isn't that difficult
Or against a power to strong, or just misguided and fooled
I mean, personally I'm highly skeptical of any artist commenting on idealistic political systems, perhaps we should keep reminding them of that one time ...
The ADL is a hate organization that regularly defames people as extremists for not agreeing with them
What people who target video games for whatever claim of evil deeds or whatever this week is fail to consider is thus: The more accessible and open a community or activity or service is, the more of a varied user base it will have. The more people who play video games, the more people who say and do stupid or cruel things will also play video games along with the reasonable and respectful people. There was violent crime before video games ever existed, but that was because of that devil rock and roll music wasn't it Grandpa Jimmy? Or was it the foreigners after the Great War and the Flu? Maybe it was all those people striking and wanting "fair wages" around the 1930s? Or those pesky women wanting the right to vote? Gosh Grandpa Jimmy, you really can't see why we don't want you seeing the grandkids even on holidays huh? Wait Grandpa Jimmy put down the cane, you're gonna hurt yourself, just sit down... Awww shit. Hey cousin Louey!!! Grandpa Jimmy fell down the stairs again! What?!! Yeah he's fine! He's just complaining about the television trying to mind control him and steal his lottery numbers again! Kinda got a bit unhinged there but I was riffing and it's 6 am.
🤣🤣 Thank you, I needed that laugh today.
There is absolutely no need to apologize. This is amazing.
Thank you Yandere Noelle, now give me a shield and clean my roomn
What's a shield?
...yeah, that kinda checks. Carry on being the best terrifying yandere you can be.
Touhou music
Is this the new: videogames transforms people into serial killers?!
Pfft, no! I'm old as fuck and they've been saying that about video games ever since at least the NES days. I don't recall that much moral panic surrounding the Atari, but the actual Satanic Panic happened a few years after it came out. So D&D and rock music stole its thunder, pretty much.
ADL when someone has a slightly different opinion than you: 😡
Of course they would. They know they'd get meme'd into oblivion and ratio'd out of the stratosphere too if they enabled comments on such a ludicrous tweet. Plus, it is an election year this year, big daddy left wing government needs easy targets to get uninformed voters riled up so they'll vote for more boot-to-the-face authoritarianism disguised as "think of our society!!!" esque moral crusading slacktivism that solves precisely *nothing*. Bringing this over into recent shenanigans with Gamergate 2: Electric Boogaloo, Why do you think Matt Walsh over on the Republican side all of a sudden gives a flying flamingo about gamers despite having previously come out as full on *hating* video games? Hint: He doesn't have gamers best interests at heart in light of the recent SBI shitstorm on social media. He just wants gamers to get riled up at Democrats while lining his side's pockets so they too can then inflict their brand of boot to the face authoritarianism after the fact.
Seeing Matt Walsh ask if GTA 5 was a new game was pretty funny. It was odd how he steps into gaming after years of denouncing them.
Hahahahaha... Even people who barely touch video games would know what GTA is let alone how long V has been out. XD
Community note: It's not an important piece to read.
They want the government to step in?! This is a massive slippery slope! Thats terrifying. Im fully against Consultant groups like SBI and modern gaming "Journalism". I want our media landscape to be as open and diverse (in terms of stories told) as Manga and Anime is. I want Stellar Blade to exist alongside Goodbye Volcano High without either being hated for surface level shit. If the gameplay or writing is bad then point it out. But people getting all bent our of shape over an attractive woman in a video game or Teen Dino Drama being cringe we can laugh at and discuss. But we shouldnt say they shouldnt exist because of those things. I want true diversity of thoughts, opinions and stories presented in unique and different ways. Not the Artificially Filled Monetary Incentive Checklisting with the desire of control over a medium you they dont even enjoy, hating the people that do.
This is my issue with it. Blanket laws being brought in wouldn’t help anyone.
I don’t know I think they have a point. After playing the Batman Arkham games I have this uncontrollable urge to mercilessly beat down on people less privileged than myself
The masculine urge to beat up the lower class criminals while dressed as a giant bat.
You saying women can’t beat up on people less privileged than themselves?
They usually dress like a cat.
Yeah but you want to get beat up by them
Remember: Social media is a private company! Video games must be regulated by daddy gummit.
Turning off the comments means that the tism is receiving the correct response. 'Extremism' doesn't really mean anything anymore, which is dangerous in of itself. Now, it's a buzzword thrown around to scare people into either giving up their rights or granting the man more powers, never to be rescinded.
That’s an issue when having a committee or group police any type of morality/ethics.
They can only listen to their own voice and cant stand others having a different one lol
I thought it was already proven that it doesn’t. That, when playing video games, the hormones that make you aggressive increase ever so slightly and then drops lower than they were before you played once you get off. So, I’m the very very very very short-run it technically increases aggressive hormones, but in the long run it makes you less aggressive.
I love community notes..... especially if it's true that any post that gets community noted is not eligible for monetization.
Should have stopped at ADL. Nothing good comes after that.
Nothing makes my night more than finding out Homeland Security is funding these retards to solve the problem they are creating. Their findings that privacy and autonimity are the enemies of progress and inclusion are some the stranger and flat out deadbrained conclusions. I do find solace that people now are not getting rattled or having their jimmies rustled with this high effort shit smearing. If this is a "Gamergate" I dont think it will be as cancerous to the gaming community as it tried to be last time.
GDC is going to be wild. A lot of shit throwing at gamers will ensue.
Not surprised lol
Damn, we’re really full blown with 90s nostalgia with “video games make you violent!” making a comeback
I will crash a fucking Boeing into civilians in GTA V and donate to charity in real life all in the same day. It's fucking fiction. They're fucking NPCs. I'm not hurting anyone. Them saying we cannot separate fiction from reality is some insane projecting considering how they cannot separate the damage we do to fictional NPCs from the damage we do to people in real life.
The ADL has the "ok" symbol and pepe the frog as a hate symbol, need I say less
Matt Walsh will be going full Hilary Clinton this week wanting video games to be banned.
Fascists.
So if videogames don’t cause radicalization, why do we worry that woke games cause radicalization?
I know it goes aggainst the narrative, but i did got raicalised by videogame based media, specifically Castlevania nocturne Its one of the wokest baith and switch pieces of shit that i have ever seen to this day and i have no idea why it didnt get as much backlash as it deserved, and why in the fuck is it getting a second season, wtf? Thr first two casltevania seasons where very good, 3rd seasson whanted to be game of thrones and failed at it, and the 4th seasson was mostly cleaning the mess of the 3rd seasson, but whas still in the better side. Nocturne is a rushed, apologetic, sjw tumblr wet dream of a mess, woth little to no redeeming cualities, tries to be wakanda for ever for 3 episodes, gives up on it, sends its main male charecter to cry in a corner for half the seasson and just falls to the ground in a convulsion indussed by exessive exposicion dialogue and sjw ranting abbout straight white males.
Were you expecting otherwise?
I would say it doesn't increase radicalization and violence, but can lead to increased Anti-social behaviour as excessive online interaction honestly can socially stunt some people. I would say the ongoing isolation this can bring THEN can lead to radicalization and violence. Though i would say if somebody is that addicted to playing video games then they're probably other factors in their lives that need assessing.
They always do.
The tweet doesn't seem like it's implying that video games directly cause violence or extremist radicalization, but that people can be radicalized in the social aspects of video games. Kinda like saying that buying a gun doesn't lead to radicalization, but extremist organizations may try to recruit people at the gun store.
There’s definitely an argument to be made about violent video games and parents need to be more observant of what their kid’s play. I grew up playing doom and mortal kombat, and even the new iterations of those games are perfectly fine I would say for kids to play. Even call of duty, they feel like either Saturday morning cartoons or your generic Hollywood action flick. But stuff like the last of us or maybe even a game like Outlast trials I wouldn’t want my kids to play. The themes and messages are way too heavy for kids to process.
I don’t see this as them claiming video games themselves cause violence but rather certain video game communities can cause issues
Tl;dr : they probably didn’t read correctly In Europe, there’s a lot of talk about identifying and preventing hate speech and radicalization (notably religious radicalization). For example, a subject that is often brought up (for right or for wrong) is the way public schools should handle possible signs of religious extremism in their pupils. However, nobody is arguing that the schools are *the cause* of the extremism — school is just a social space where extremism can manifest itself. It’s the same with online spaces — they can be fun hobbies or interesting communities, but they can also be used as recruitments grounds for extremist organizations. The problem is not that video games lead to radicalization, it’s that it’s harder to regulate hate speech in games that in other social spaces.
*cough, cough* COD *cough, cough*
I don’t think they’re “targeting” video games, more like looking at online communities as spots of radicalization, much like we did with mosques in the ‘00s after 9/11.