"Video games promote hatred, violence and sexism."

[acosn]

Its a crap shoot to advance an agenda, or alternatively feed them with ratings.


20 years ago parents were worried that rock and roll and metal were doing the same thing.

In the 1950's and prior the concern was leveled against comic books.

If you dig far enough back you see the same in the early days of movies, and then probably when books became far more wide spread.

This is nothing new, people just have very short memories.

 

[Ham_authority95]

I stopped caring after the 5th thread. This is the, what, tenth?

Same here, mate

 

[whaleswiththumbs]

I vote we kill that ignorant, self-righteous woman in the middle in classic video game style, just to revel in the irony.

Yes, and give them more fuel for their fire...

I like that first guy.. Really if it's the parents worry so much then THEY should stop them.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

I believe the pro-gaming guy needs to work on his on-camera mannerisms. He had a habit of looking around as he constructed his arguments and points (something I share). That made him seem flustered and off kilter; at worst, inexperienced, which would be a death knell on a show like that.

He's not the worst person on defense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZiD8WkL2vo&feature=related

It wouldn't matter if he was as articulate as Abraham Lincoln. It wouldn't matter if he was Abraham Lincoln. These "newsroom" and "debate" talk shows just want to be sensationalist and push an agenda. He could provide verifiable proof from a fifty year global study led by Stephen Hawking (though, the relevance to his particular field could be questioned I suppose...), with a delivery not unlike that of the "I have a dream" speech.

The opposition could then say "but videogames ATE MY BABY!"

The crowd would still cheer.

Uughhh that was uncomfortable to watch.

My point was more related to how the debate is won on those types of shows; essentially like an argument on a political debate. Both players have to capture the respect and capriciousness of the audience. Part of that is stage performance and putting off the on-screen aura needed to win.

Yes, it is important. While lacking, this guy was better than most I've seen so far. The problem is that stage performance is only a relevant edge in "equal side" debates with neutral moderators. In the "videogame violence" arena, the house and audience are just looking for validation for their agenda. In these "debates" there is at least a 2:1 representation distribution; not including the "host" who sets up the scenario such that the "Pro-Gamer" has to start out on the defensive. There is also more time given to the "Anti-Gamer" group.

It works like this;

Host: Videogames are very violent, and that is bad. We have Pro-Game and Anti-Game 1 and 2 here. Since videogames need to first prove that they aren't the spawn of Satan, we shall start with Pro-Game. So, how does it feel being a baby-killer?
Pro-Game: I don't... what? I'm not a baby-killer, that's not really relevant at all. There hasn't actually been proof that videogames cause violence.
Anti-Game 1: I'm going to stop you right there; you are a baby-killer. This study I heard about from a friend who read an opinion paper about this on a biased weblog says it is verifiable that videogames cause violence.
Pro-Game: That study is actually a fabri-
Anti-Game 2: You know, when I was a kid, we played with sticks. Today we play with virtual sticks. What will it be like tomorrow?
Pro-Game: That doesn't have any-
Host: Yes, what do you think will become of the future if this trend continues?
Pro-Game: I'm not a fortune-teller here, why don't we keep this at the "right-now" level instead of speculating? Parents should be responsible to make sure their children are experiencing entertainment appropriate for their age.
Anti-Game 1: But you eat babies, and I am anti-baby eating.
Pro-Game: Wha...?
Host: Well, that's all the time we have to discuss this horrible, horrible trend in society. God help us all.

 

[molester jester]

If videogame really did promote violence he would have reached over and slapped that bint.

 

[Klarinette]

I'm very offended by this. When I punch women in the street, it's for totally different reasons than videogames.

I lol'd.

I've seen a couple posts where people point out that this is the millionth thread about this sort of thing... well, isn't it kind of sad that this kind of horseshit keeps coming up in the media as it is? It's like they think they have a valid argument that's about to change the way people raise children, forever.

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

God I HATE when this happens. Did anyone else notice they kept interupting the one smart guy?

People like this tend to do that. They are so smug in their own opinions and keep down anyone else who thinks otherwise. They also tend to employ faulty argument processes (look up logical fallacy). Whenever my teachers bring in clips of news shows debating, there's always at least one obvious stupid person employing these tactics to try and validate his/her argument. The sad thing is that the news people often tends to side with these people and squash down the others. It doesn't have to be about video games. I've seen this done about sports as well.

 

[SilverUchiha]

WTF? This makes me hate that ***** so much I wanna punch her in the face!!! (kidding)

Um, this sort of debate isn't new, but their arguments are getting repetitive to the point of making me sick. What the guy defending games said is absolutely correct. Kids have just as much trouble getting into Adult movies as they do getting Adult or Mature games. The fact is that it is the fucking idiotic parents fault for buying these games for their bratty and retarded kids in the first place. Too bad there is no good way to fix that issue.

Yes, a majority of games promote negative qualities like violence, sexism, etc etc. But a lot of other facets of entertainment do as well. Forget the fact it's interactive. To some, video games are a form of art and trying to censor it would ruin that art. It'd be on the same level of censoring Playboy or Michaelangelo's David. (I'm pretty sure I said something that doesn't make a damn bit of sense).

 

[Noobstick]

Eeeh, I find it hard to really care TBH. At this point, what can they do about it? Games as is are accepted legally if not yet socially; an ever-increasing segment of the population is growing up with videogames, and many of them are starting to work, pay taxes and vote (and rather coincidentally, their opinions are suddenly becoming relevant in the eyes of our wonderful and ever so competent politicians).

The pundits can scream all they like, they lost a long time ago and at this point all they'll manage to produce is hot air. How about we drop this whole muder talk and just have a good laugh at their expense?

 

[avenged undead]

Ok. I'm an avid gamer. Love video games. I use them to VENT anger. NOT to promote or emphasis it or learn how to do it. If it weren't for games like Zelda, Spider-Man, Super Smash Bros., etc. as a kid, I would have been in alot of fights to vent my frustration and anger. These games help at times. The only reason that someone would be violent after playing one of these games is if they are really impressionable. I've played all the God Of Wars, both Assassin's Creeds, Darksiders, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Oblivion, GTA 4, Fallout 3, The Force Unleashed, Prototype, (this list goes on) and have almost beaten all of them and i don't find them to be changing me much, well besides liking violence in video games. I find it actually helpful to beat people up in Batman over trying to in real life.

But then again, I hate real world violence. So my arguement is probably moot to most people, including the people who study these forums to try to find holes in our arguements to call us out and prove us wrong.

 

[The Cake Is Annoying]

I don't watch clips like this, because I can't take them any more seriously than a bunch of illiterates arguing about "How much bookburning is too much bookburning?"

Honestly. This is the summit of Mount Irrelevance. The wonderful thing is no amount of scaremongering is going to change the fact that generations of children are going to grow up with videogames much the the same way generations before have grown up with the television, the wireless, and the paperback. Nothing short of an apocalypse is going to change this.

(Incidentally we ourselves are scheduled to begin scaremongering about some new form of media we do not understand in 60 years time ourselves. Lets take notes on what works, shall we?)

 

[Chewster]

Misogyny perhaps, and maybe even violence, but hatred, I'm not too sure. I mean, anyone who actually hates the bad guys they are splattering all over the place is clearly doing it wrong, and any actual racism in gaming these days is likely due to general game designer stupidity rather then intended malice.

Of course saying that games promote these things and actually linking game players to these kinds of antisocial attitudes are two separate things. More legitimate research needs to be done, clearly.

Like if we look all of film more broadly, you will find films that promote violence by naturalizing war and making it exciting, you will find movies which promote sexism through big bosom-ed ladies bouncing around in bikinis.

Obviously, but we're not on a film forum responding to people who are upset about film. And two wrongs, and all that too. I'm not saying I agree with the people in the video, but saying "other people have committed murder" is not acceptable as an argument for why the murder you committed is OK.

 

[khaimera]

Here is an unpopular opinion. When you think about how many games portray the themes of violence, women, and mayhem in general it stands to reaosn that they will have some effect on how the brain organizes information related to these categories. Does playing violent games affect how you at least view violence, YES.

However, violence has and always will be around and if there were not videogames to indulge our violent fantaises, we would get that need filled elsewhere, like with galdiators.

The views in that video were rediculous though.

Actually, even that is wrong. Science has shown that viewing violence will not effect how you view it. The only downside to that is the fact that it ruins A Clockwork Orange.

What? So you're arguing that there is no such thing as habituation, desensitization, or any link between viewing violence and changes occuring in the brain. This is the same brain that cure disease with a placebo. I'd link a study but there's no need.

 

[Georgie_Leech]

I vote we kill that ignorant, self-righteous woman in the middle in classic video game style, just to revel in the irony.

*cough*

Not helping our cause much here.

Not really, but I am a sucker for ironic deaths.

No no, what would be ironic is if a videogamer stepped in a saved her from a mugging or something like that. Her belief in videogames=evil means that any gamer killing her would prove her point.

 

[Obrien Xp]

All I have to say is that society repeats cycles, new things come in, the older generation tends to dislike it, the younger generation takes over, the object becomes common and accepted.

Cases in point:
Harmonized music (banned by church in middle ages)
soccer/football
the beatles
metal
rap/hip-hop
etc.

 

[(whitty name here)]

I actually made a pic to show my rage on the level that that ***** is on.

Spoiler

 

[AntiAntagonist]

Yes, it is important. While lacking, this guy was better than most I've seen so far. The problem is that stage performance is only a relevant edge in "equal side" debates with neutral moderators. In the "videogame violence" arena, the house and audience are just looking for validation for their agenda. In these "debates" there is at least a 2:1 representation distribution; not including the "host" who sets up the scenario such that the "Pro-Gamer" has to start out on the defensive. There is also more time given to the "Anti-Gamer" group.

It works like this;

Host: Videogames are very violent, and that is bad. We have Pro-Game and Anti-Game 1 and 2 here. Since videogames need to first prove that they aren't the spawn of Satan, we shall start with Pro-Game. So, how does it feel being a baby-killer?
Pro-Game: I don't... what? I'm not a baby-killer, that's not really relevant at all. There hasn't actually been proof that videogames cause violence.
Anti-Game 1: I'm going to stop you right there; you are a baby-killer. This study I heard about from a friend who read an opinion paper about this on a biased weblog says it is verifiable that videogames cause violence.
Pro-Game: That study is actually a fabri-
Anti-Game 2: You know, when I was a kid, we played with sticks. Today we play with virtual sticks. What will it be like tomorrow?
Pro-Game: That doesn't have any-
Host: Yes, what do you think will become of the future if this trend continues?
Pro-Game: I'm not a fortune-teller here, why don't we keep this at the "right-now" level instead of speculating? Parents should be responsible to make sure their children are experiencing entertainment appropriate for their age.
Anti-Game 1: But you eat babies, and I am anti-baby eating.
Pro-Game: Wha...?
Host: Well, that's all the time we have to discuss this horrible, horrible trend in society. God help us all.

Pro-Game:I bet you are pro-puppy killing. You seem to love crushing other peoples' past-times and social ties arbitrarily. I bet you laughed at the end of Old Yeller.

Seriously though, I generally take heed to the old joke- 'Don't argue with idiots, they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.' However these defeats show a general problem with intellectuals needing to learn how to defeat strawmen and emotional arguments quickly.

If the odds are stacked against the topic those debates need to be learned from and avoid being dismissed only for their defeat.

I got my landlord to see a fault in what he's been told by first pointing out a lack of information. All I had to say when he said, 'games have rape and promote such' was 'Name one'. I believe the that the way to start winning these 'debates' isn't by answering questions, but by challenging the construction of their arguments.

Pro-Game: I can make up studies too. Did you know that 67% of people in Peru reported that eaten bats? However I can also tell you about real studies. Did you know that the only correlation put between violence in games and children has to do with children who live in violent homes?

-or-

Pro-Game: Name ANY ORGANIZATION that funded ANY STUDY that was "done in America" and had 130,000 people from all over the world putting in data. No? No study? Not in ANY FIELD WHATSOEVER? HOMEWORK, ladies and gentlemen, is why we need to put the education of our children first in the nation agenda.

*edited first sentence of second paragraph to point out joke at beginning and added last 3 paragraphs*

 

[AMMO Kid]

I play video games when I am mad or stressed to take my mind of things and help me relax, they definately don't make me violent