Just do a single search of "Media Influence" in Google Scholar. There's studies back in the 80s' showing up, let alone studies that come up from this year alone. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean that they don't exist.
look, if media influenced violence we should be able to see some statistical evidence, such as spikes in criminal behaviour right after a new violent film or video game gets released, because even if the media could significantly affect the mental state of a person, that does not mean the person will act violent
One movie, one TV show, one book, one game, one work alone in one instance does diddly squat.
Every movie and TV you've watch, every book you've read, every song you've heard, every game you've played, every advertisement you've saw, combined with all the influence of school, friends, family, and life events up to this exact moment in time is what made you "you" in terms of beliefs and value.
Sure it is easy to filter out the obviously fantastical elements, but the elements that you accept as passable reflections of reality are the ones you should be wary of.
It is those elements that can influence what you believe and what you value.
Just because you know it is fiction doesn't mean it can't leave an impression.
Also, just because GTA sold more doesn't mean it has a bigger weight when influencing a person.
I expect those who desire change to respect the right of entertainment based cultures to not have to change. To put it bluntly, if the gaming community itself doesn't want change, then what authority does anyone have to force them? The gaming culture especially on the internet unlike cultures of the real world are not bound by international treaties to be forced to make compromises to minorities. The gaming culture that started with the arcade days are based on an entertainment medium. Whatever the majority wants in gaming culture is what they will get, no matter who it offends. As long as the major companies make their money, they don't care either who they offend either. All they have to do is make an simple apology and boom life goes on and they continue to make money appeasing their core audience.
Unlike individuals who make strong comments and can get seriously punished for it. A company decision unless its through money and their bottom-line can't be seriously punished. Unlike the real woman rights movement, where politicians would of lost their votes and positions of power if they were against it... Gaming companies aren't politicians and their core audience aren't feminists. Money rules companies and unless you hurt their pockets they have every right to listen to it's main core audience and downright ignore minorities if those minorities aren't in control of their bottom-line.
Maybe one day the change will happen. Personally I'm not against the change. I am however; against people thinking it's their god given right force changes to happen whether right or wrong against a culture that has constantly shown it's not ready or willing to change yet.
Respect the right? Perhaps, doesn't mean we can't discuss it, and I'd think the other side would have to respect our right to want to change the industry too, or is that a one way street? Nobody's using "force", at least to my knowledge, to change the industry, even Anita hasn't alluded to it, just recommend the companies to take a few courses of action.
I expect those who desire change to respect the right of entertainment based cultures to not have to change. To put it bluntly, if the gaming community itself doesn't want change, then what authority does anyone have to force them? The gaming culture especially on the internet unlike cultures of the real world are not bound by international treaties to be forced to make compromises to minorities. The gaming culture that started with the arcade days are based on an entertainment medium. Whatever the majority wants in gaming culture is what they will get, no matter who it offends. As long as the major companies make their money, they don't care either who they offend either. All they have to do is make an simple apology and boom life goes on and they continue to make money appeasing their core audience.
Unlike individuals who make strong comments and can get seriously punished for it. A company decision unless its through money and their bottom-line can't be seriously punished. Unlike the real woman rights movement, where politicians would of lost their votes and positions of power if they were against it... Gaming companies aren't politicians and their core audience aren't feminists. Money rules companies and unless you hurt their pockets they have every right to listen to it's main core audience and downright ignore minorities if those minorities aren't in control of their bottom-line.
Maybe one day the change will happen. Personally I'm not against the change. I am however; against people thinking it's their god given right force changes to happen whether right or wrong against a culture that has constantly shown it's not ready or willing to change yet.
Respect the right? Perhaps, doesn't mean we can't discuss it, and I'd think the other side would have to respect our right to want to change the industry too, or is that a one way street? Nobody's using "force", at least to my knowledge, to change the industry, even Anita hasn't alluded to it, just recommend the companies to take a few courses of action.
Just do a single search of "Media Influence" in Google Scholar. There's studies back in the 80s' showing up, let alone studies that come up from this year alone. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean that they don't exist.
look, if media influenced violence we should be able to see some statistical evidence, such as spikes in criminal behaviour right after a new violent film or video game gets released, because even if the media could significantly affect the mental state of a person, that does not mean the person will act violent
One movie, one TV show, one book, one game, one work alone in one instance does diddly squat.
Every movie and TV you've watch, every book you've read, every song you've heard, every game you've played, every advertisement you've saw, combined with all the influence of school, friends, family, and life events up to this exact moment in time is what made you "you" in terms of beliefs and value.
Sure it is easy to filter out the obviously fantastical elements, but the elements that you accept as passable reflections of reality are the ones you should be wary of.
It is those elements that can influence what you believe and what you value.
Just because you know it is fiction doesn't mean it can't leave an impression.
Also, just because GTA sold more doesn't mean it has a bigger weight when influencing a person.
look, if media influenced violence we should be able to see some statistical evidence, such as spikes in criminal behaviour right after a new violent film or video game gets released
Again, no, thats not how you get data, because there's too many variables going on. You test, in a controlled environment, and eventually extrapolate data to a larger population. The purpose of an experiment is to eliminate as many of the variables you do not intend to study possible. You don't take broad statistics, and do guesswork on how you feel it should be if 'x' is so.
This video appears to be relevant here:
Your current behavior towards this is no different from these people making stupid claims in the videos. Like they feel that CO2 only has a small influence on climate because its small, you feel that violence coming as the indirect result of media conditioning, video games in particular, would be enormous enough that there is no other possible variable one could conceive of.
im not feeling anything, im looking at statistical data, and the data, accross many countries, accross many years, does not show any kind of variation that can link it to media violence
yes there are variables, but even then when you get enough data you should be able to see a trend, that simply doesnt happen, a big violent media release does not translate into an increase in say, homicides, if we cant see that it means whateevr effect violent media has on people is insignificant enough to be ignored, or it means whatever harmful influence violent media might have is nullified by society, by these variables you keep talking about
if you have some statistical data to back up your claim, go ahead and post them, the way i see it, there is not enough evidence to argue violent media can unwittingly drive people into violent behaviour
Just do a single search of "Media Influence" in Google Scholar. There's studies back in the 80s' showing up, let alone studies that come up from this year alone. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean that they don't exist.
look, if media influenced violence we should be able to see some statistical evidence, such as spikes in criminal behaviour right after a new violent film or video game gets released, because even if the media could significantly affect the mental state of a person, that does not mean the person will act violent
One movie, one TV show, one book, one game, one work alone in one instance does diddly squat.
Every movie and TV you've watch, every book you've read, every song you've heard, every game you've played, every advertisement you've saw, combined with all the influence of school, friends, family, and life events up to this exact moment in time is what made you "you" in terms of beliefs and value.
Sure it is easy to filter out the obviously fantastical elements, but the elements that you accept as passable reflections of reality are the ones you should be wary of.
It is those elements that can influence what you believe and what you value.
Just because you know it is fiction doesn't mean it can't leave an impression.
Also, just because GTA sold more doesn't mean it has a bigger weight when influencing a person.
Just do a single search of "Media Influence" in Google Scholar. There's studies back in the 80s' showing up, let alone studies that come up from this year alone. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean that they don't exist.
look, if media influenced violence we should be able to see some statistical evidence, such as spikes in criminal behaviour right after a new violent film or video game gets released, because even if the media could significantly affect the mental state of a person, that does not mean the person will act violent
One movie, one TV show, one book, one game, one work alone in one instance does diddly squat.
Every movie and TV you've watch, every book you've read, every song you've heard, every game you've played, every advertisement you've saw, combined with all the influence of school, friends, family, and life events up to this exact moment in time is what made you "you" in terms of beliefs and value.
Sure it is easy to filter out the obviously fantastical elements, but the elements that you accept as passable reflections of reality are the ones you should be wary of.
It is those elements that can influence what you believe and what you value.
Just because you know it is fiction doesn't mean it can't leave an impression.
Also, just because GTA sold more doesn't mean it has a bigger weight when influencing a person.
@NuclearKangaroo: No, when SOMEONE ELSE validates your beliefs, especially in such a way media can do so, there is no comparison to you only validating it yourself, unless you are extremely thick headed and/or egotistical.
Do we really need to do this every single week? A 20 page thread about her just fell off the front page yesterday and just like every other thread everyone just argues in circles, never listening to the other side and defending their opinion like it was their first born child.
And what is your basis for what constitutes a link between violence and media consumption, exactly? At which threshold in the homocide rate will you accept it, and why at that threshold specifically?
the chi-squared test is your friend, if there is a significant variation between the expected value of a statistical study and the observed the results, we would be able to tell
MarsAtlas said:
No, not really. People don't even genuinely know if the death penalty functions a crime deterrant. Everybody is subjected to the law, and just about everybody is capable of homocide - there's a significantly larger amount of the population effected, and yet, we still don't know.
we SHOULD be able to see some sort of variation if we look at enough statistical results, that is, if the variable we are looking at actually has an effect on the results
MarsAtlas said:
I think this is the most troubling thing about your thesis. Because the effect isn't grandiose, its not a problem.
the problem with doing the opposite is that we could probably link having cold cereal for breakfast leads to disconfort, which leads to anger which leads to violence or some other contrived hypothesis like that
MarsAtlas said:
Well, if thats the case, then I guess we should just tell all the victims of assault in the US to get over it, as it doesn't really matter that they were sexually assault, and we shouldn't really care about the crime at all, because compared to, say, South Africa, the rate of rape in the US is quite low. Once we get the homocide rate down from embarrassing levels down to a completely arbirary number, the local government is going to officially implement its "fuck you, got mine" policy regarding homocides, and not bother to investigate homocides and prosecute murderers unless it rises past that completely arbitrary threshold again.
you are literally comparing me arguing media violence has an effect so insignifcant on people's behaviour it cannot be observed after several surveys, with rape, or rape acceptance, yeah
MarsAtlas said:
And see, your mind is already made up. I already have posted, and you sort of ignored it even though its from a rather credible journal. "The way I see it" isn't how evidence works. "I haven't seen enough evidence to make a conclusion" is a credible and honest response. "I haven't seen anything so it can't be true", however, is not.
Do we really need to do this every single week? A 20 page thread about her just fell off the front page yesterday and just like every other thread everyone just argues in circles, never listening to the other side and defending their opinion like it was their first born child.
@ultreos: Fair enough assessment, I know I can't "feel" right unless an outside force, whether that is others or facts, reinforces it. This is because facts are gathered by others as well, and whether or not you view them as facts is often based on your own beliefs and how credible you think other observers are. I know at least a few examples of men like how I described, Sye Ten fits the description well enough, considering he has very little support from other apologists, and I'd check him under the "both" category. Correctness is based on the outside world, so a person who self congratulates and has such a strong feeling of rightness would have to have at least 1 outside thing to go to validate themselves, and if they don't, they are literally standing against EVERYTHING, facts, statistics, every other person they ever converse with etc.. I'm not sure if you are implying this is bad thing, because I hardly see it so. The last bit is interesting, but I would hardly think I would want everyone to completely agree with me on anything, since my goals are a better understanding of reality and other people and for others to understand themselves and their beliefs.
Because unless I'm mistaken Anita Sarkeesian isn't trying to get all games banned everywhere and is instead just trying to draw attention to issues within the industry that should be addressed (even if she is preaching to the choir).
Oh. Never actually watched any of her videos. Don't care to have her lecture me about stuff I already know. Regardless, she's still head and shoulders above Jack Thompson.
@The_Kodu: Okay, I'll be honest, I kind of hate what you said, because you can use "guilt tripping" for anything. "We're being forced to 'go green' because scientists have guilt tripped us that it is our fault the planet is like this." "We're being forced to serve gays because the liberals have guilt tripped us that it is unfair to do that practice, although it is legal in this state" Seriously, you can do this with ANYTHING...
Because unless I'm mistaken Anita Sarkeesian isn't trying to get all games banned everywhere and is instead just trying to draw attention to issues within the industry that should be addressed (even if she is preaching to the choir).
Oh. Never actually watched any of her videos. Don't care to have her lecture me about stuff I already know. Regardless, she's still head and shoulders above Jack Thompson.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
