"Video games promote hatred, violence and sexism."

[Monshroud]

I think the game designer did an incredible job defending a point that the other panelest just wanted to ignore.

M-Rated games are not for your 9 year old. They are talking about the links between videogame violence and real violence in children, the problem is these games aren't for children.

So how are the kids getting these games, I would go so far to bet 70% or higher are bought for them by their parents and/or someone in the family.

I remember being at EB games shortly after GTA3 came out. This boy who was probably 9 or 10 wanted to buy GTA3. Ray who was the manager of the store said that he couldn't without his parent there. So the boy comes back with Mom and wants to know what is going on. Ray says that he is not allowed to sell a M-Rated game to anyone under the age of 17. The Mom asks what is so bad about the game, Ray gives the run down on the content. The Mom actually looks a little concerned then looks to her son and asks "Is this really the type of game you want to play" and the boy then says how he thinks it is really cool and how he friend parents let him have it. Mom hands over money, and little boy now is playing something that is WAY over his head for comprehension.

The problem is the ignorant parents who allow this to happen. The parents who can't be bothered to set the rating limits on their consoles, or can't be bothered to read the rating note on the front or the back of the box.

 

[Maltyz]

I beat up hookers because Nikky Belic does it & that makes it cool!

 

[FinalHeart95]

The worst part is her saying: "I am against using violence about entertainment."

WHAT ABOUT MOVIES, MUSIC, BOOKS? YOU DEFENDED THOSE FIVE FUCKING MINUTES AGO!!! I love how the anti-games people don't respond to the pro-games guy's arguments at all, they just repeat the same drivel.

 

[Richard Hannay]

The self-righteous woman is this video is instilling me with feelings of hatred, sexism, and the desire to be violent. She should be banned.

 

[The Hairminator]

This video made me want to go out and hate on immigrants with my skinhead buddies, while beating some pore fellow up, and rape some girls.

REALLY, now? Just because some parents are irresponsible and are too stupid to not set their children straight at an early age it's not video games fault.

There's a proven fucking link between breathing oxygen and child molestation too!

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Can't. Resist. Any. More.
I have to say I totally agree with everything and all that the pro-video games guy said. His arguement parallels mine in probably everyway imaginable. He put forth his arguement in a clear and logical way, he backed it up with ACTUAL data rather than the corralation shit that the anti-fun lady put out (Yes I'm actually sure that people who play violent video games are more likely to be violent. But it's not because of the video games, its because of something else entirely. Problem A (has aggressive personality) causing Event 1 (plays violent video games) and Event 2 (acts violently) pretty much. Violent people will gravitate to violent forms of entertainment the same way that dog-lovers will gravitate to dog-involving forms of entertainment.) and he did so in a calm, orderly, and reasonable manner. Then the rest of the show totally ignored him and cheered for the idiots. *sigh*

"Never fight the unarmed in the field of logic"

 

[Good morning blues]

snip

snip

snip

I remain unconvinced! All three of these posts argue that video games promoting violence and various forms of discrimination are not problems because other media do so, too. This is a pretty lazy defense; either we're okay with it or we're not. If we want better public acceptance of video games as a legitimate entertainment (or even artistic) medium, the gaming community should respond by trying to address these problems, not by finger-pointing and "they started it" arguments.

Valid points. A response of "I'll show them violence", "kill them", or "wait 'till they die" doesn't really help the "mature ratings work" mantra. I also question the necessity of violence and sex in most modern "entertainment".

The problem I have with it is that there is no accountability. No accountability to consumers or parents to know what they are buying for their children or allowing their children to experience entertainment out of their classification. There is no accountability to the media to provide validation.

There are very few to no "news" shows remaining. They are all just gussied up "talk shows". As such, they are all subjective opinion and they don't require validation. The problem is they are still presented as "news" and "objective", and people buy into it.

The bigger problem is this takes focus away from the underlying social problems that prompt the actual violence and increase the demand for violent media. Things like poverty, unemployment, and illiteracy/under-education.

If you "fix" videogames, you aren't going to solve these problems. You aren't going to reduce violent crime. It is the same fallacy for the "anti-gun" campaigns. People want to believe "take away [insert 'bad thing' here], problems go away". The problem, as always, is that objects are not capable of evil, people are. We don't want to accept that fact that people are violent because society (or their parents) failed them, or that they are naturally that violent. We want to believe it is a malicious object. If I want to visit violence on some one, the problem isn't that I have a gun that makes it convenient for me, or that I played a videogame that showed me a neat way to do it; the problem is that I want to visit violence on them. I will visit violence on them even if I don't have videogames or guns. Society failed to teach me that violence isn't the answer, or I simply failed to accept that (which would be a personal problem much deeper than a videogame can influence).

If we start to censor videogames because we acquiecse to the idea that they are causing our problems, censorship and removal of rights can occur for anything that we "blame" for problems. It will continue to keep the focus away from the root problems.

This is pretty legitimate. It's true that supposed news shows like this one add nothing to public debate and indeed hamper the free circulation of ideas by spreading misinformation and encouraging a culture of debate in which the loudest person wins.

I agree that better distribution control is the best answer to this, but that certainly shouldn't stand in the way of criticism of video game content. Just because an adult is playing doesn't mean that constantly playing Tom Clancy games isn't going to affect people's ideas about clandestine military operations.

 

[Tucker154]

I am 15 teen years old and i am an avid gamer,and guess what.I AM A PACIFIST!Video games to not proote violence.For me,it actualy keeps me from being violent by letting me take my anger out on things.God I hate idiots...

 

[Pumpkin_Eater]

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

If by revel in the irony you mean prove them right then sounds like a plan.

Anyway, what doesn't promote hatred, violence and sexism these days?

 

[whycantibelinus]

I think it's funny how he said 15 years ago games were less violent, they weren't less violent they just didn't have the ability to make it as defined. I mean Doom is pretty damn close to what Gears of War is, by way of story and all, fuck both games even use chainsaws, but Doom just didn't have the graphical ability to make the monsters crumble into bloody pieces when hacked up. In Command and Conquer (one of them, can't remember which) you can build a fucking ICBM and blow the fuck out of the enemy. How in the hell is that less violent than games now.

Fuck!! In real life Americans built 2 bombs that absolutely decimated 2 fucking cities, on top of the fact that they fire bombed the fuck out of Tokyo. Nazi Germany nearly fucking destroyed London, Nazi Germany nearly destroyed all of Europe! Jesus those two idiots are retarded.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

snip

snip

snip

I remain unconvinced! All three of these posts argue that video games promoting violence and various forms of discrimination are not problems because other media do so, too. This is a pretty lazy defense; either we're okay with it or we're not. If we want better public acceptance of video games as a legitimate entertainment (or even artistic) medium, the gaming community should respond by trying to address these problems, not by finger-pointing and "they started it" arguments.

Valid points. A response of "I'll show them violence", "kill them", or "wait 'till they die" doesn't really help the "mature ratings work" mantra. I also question the necessity of violence and sex in most modern "entertainment".

The problem I have with it is that there is no accountability. No accountability to consumers or parents to know what they are buying for their children or allowing their children to experience entertainment out of their classification. There is no accountability to the media to provide validation.

There are very few to no "news" shows remaining. They are all just gussied up "talk shows". As such, they are all subjective opinion and they don't require validation. The problem is they are still presented as "news" and "objective", and people buy into it.

The bigger problem is this takes focus away from the underlying social problems that prompt the actual violence and increase the demand for violent media. Things like poverty, unemployment, and illiteracy/under-education.

If you "fix" videogames, you aren't going to solve these problems. You aren't going to reduce violent crime. It is the same fallacy for the "anti-gun" campaigns. People want to believe "take away [insert 'bad thing' here], problems go away". The problem, as always, is that objects are not capable of evil, people are. We don't want to accept that fact that people are violent because society (or their parents) failed them, or that they are naturally that violent. We want to believe it is a malicious object. If I want to visit violence on some one, the problem isn't that I have a gun that makes it convenient for me, or that I played a videogame that showed me a neat way to do it; the problem is that I want to visit violence on them. I will visit violence on them even if I don't have videogames or guns. Society failed to teach me that violence isn't the answer, or I simply failed to accept that (which would be a personal problem much deeper than a videogame can influence).

If we start to censor videogames because we acquiecse to the idea that they are causing our problems, censorship and removal of rights can occur for anything that we "blame" for problems. It will continue to keep the focus away from the root problems.

This is pretty legitimate. It's true that supposed news shows like this one add nothing to public debate and indeed hamper the free circulation of ideas by spreading misinformation and encouraging a culture of debate in which the loudest person wins.

I agree that better distribution control is the best answer to this, but that certainly shouldn't stand in the way of criticism of video game content. Just because an adult is playing doesn't mean that constantly playing Tom Clancy games isn't going to affect people's ideas about clandestine military operations.

I'm not saying that "All forms of entertainment include violent content so it's okay for video games to do so too" is the only defense video games have for it. I'm just saying that video games are being unfairly bashed for having immoral content while other forms of media are being left alone dispite the fact that include the same stuff. There are plenty other defenses for video games out there that amount to more than "Everyone else is doing it so why can't we?". I believe that violence occurs in video games so much because we gamers generally find it entertaining. Violence in video games is a symptom of another social problem all together. If you noticed sexuality in video games wasn't mentioned at all in the interview. The main reason being is that this was a EUROPEAN talk show. Europeans are generally not quite as uptight when it comes to sexuality than Americans are. Case-in-point: FOX News got all riled up about Mass Effect with it's sex scenes but seemed to ignore the wealth of extremely violent video games out there. Europeans are more causal (within reason) about sexuality while Americans are more casual (once again within reason) about violence.
And just to be clear, as I've said before extreme violence in video games isn't okay or excused just because it's meant for adults and thus "mature". There is still a point at which you've gone to far with violence (or sex, or greed, or hatred, or whathave you). It's more of an underlying social problem that for the most part this kind of stuff is okay so long as it's played by adults. Certain lines should not be crossed no matter how "mature you are". It's just that people get so upset about video games being immoral when they fail to realize that not all of it is wrong and that censoring something just because it has some content that "might possibly in the right circumstance" cause some immoral behavior than you might as well just destroy our culture and start all over. All in all it just boils down to human maturity and how we react to certain things.

 

[Freedomario]

Hate to bring this up, but wouldn't killing them just Prove their point?
Sure i want to do it too as-well but, as stated above we shouldn't.

 

[Good morning blues]

No, I'm not saying it's not a problem, it's just that it's unreasonable to judge videogames by any stricter standard than other media when there's never been any study that suggests that videogames make you any more suggestible than films, TV or books do. As far as I'm concerned, I have no problem with violence in any form of media, as long as it's not real and is rated appropriately to keep it out of the hands of children too young for it. I don't know of any games of note that promote discrimination though, unless you're talking about the sexism aspect. Yes, that is a problem, I'll admit that. Videogames really need to get out of the adolescent boy mindset. Other than that though, I don't see any reason why videogames and gamers should be treated differently from those who watch violent films, until a scientifically rigid study proves it.

I don't want to pick on you, but frankly this is a huge misconception. You constantly hear gamers saying that "no study has ever proven a link between games and violence;" in fact, you probably hear it just as much as pundits saying that "there has been a study proving this link." Neither side is ever able to cough up any citations when pressed.

Welp, anyone who has access to an online database of academic journals should take a look. There are dozens of credible scientific studies that do conclusively link video games with "aggression" ? even in a way that is distinct from other violent media. I actually even found one recently that reveals that video games that allow the player to customize their character in the game ? you know, the ones that let you choose exactly what your character looks like, such as Battlefield Heroes and Fallout 3 and such ? provoke a significantly higher aggression response than do other violent games. The point is, there is strong scientific evidence that violent video games affect us in ways that other media don't.

There are, of course, no credible studies that establish a causal link between video games and "violence."

 

[AntiAntagonist]

You cannot define color to a blind man. As hypocritical as this statement is; referencing my previous example of how they won't listen to the reason of someone who they have determined is crazy; you can't convince an actual crazy person that they are crazy, nor will an idiot ever understand that they are an idiot.

This "debate", as with any other "debate" over emergent media; cannot be "won", cannot be "reasoned", cannot be concluded rationally. Both sides believe unwaveringly that they are absolutely "right" and the other is absolutely idiotic. As with any other "debate" on emergent media, it must simply die of old age and lost interest. We keep it alive longer by trying to participate in events such as these.

People who are sometimes irrational or even often irrational can be shown logic. However due to rabble rousing tactics they can be short-circuited into the cause that makes them feel the most. Those arguments can be knocked on their ass if the speaker knows how to show a fool for what they are.

Sticking our collective heads in the sand and avoiding any debates whatsoever does not help. They could easily spin that any way that they please "they won't even come on this show, it shows that video games produce cowards/anti-social kids/shut-ins". That remains the same so long as we recuse ourselves from debate and remain in absentia.

The court that they argue in (regardless of the network) is the court of public opinion. All too often the loudest voice wins out, particularly if their opponents lose focus on their goals. If there is no voice to oppose the only voice speaking is the loudest.

Another point to make is this: many of people of the world are not so clear cut as "anti" and "pro" however they may wish to define themselves. Put the seed of a question in a person's mind who is wavering, or has always been close to the middle and they can sway the other way. That is the WHOLE POINT of arguing and debate in terms of objectivity.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

You cannot define color to a blind man. As hypocritical as this statement is; referencing my previous example of how they won't listen to the reason of someone who they have determined is crazy; you can't convince an actual crazy person that they are crazy, nor will an idiot ever understand that they are an idiot.

This "debate", as with any other "debate" over emergent media; cannot be "won", cannot be "reasoned", cannot be concluded rationally. Both sides believe unwaveringly that they are absolutely "right" and the other is absolutely idiotic. As with any other "debate" on emergent media, it must simply die of old age and lost interest. We keep it alive longer by trying to participate in events such as these.

People who are sometimes irrational or even often irrational can be shown logic. However due to rabble rousing tactics they can be short-circuited into the cause that makes them feel the most. Those arguments can be knocked on their ass if the speaker knows how to show a fool for what they are.

Sticking our collective heads in the sand and avoiding any debates whatsoever does not help. They could easily spin that any way that they please "they won't even come on this show, it shows that video games produce cowards/anti-social kids/shut-ins". That remains the same so long as we recuse ourselves from debate and remain in absentia.

The court that they argue in (regardless of the network) is the court of public opinion. All too often the loudest voice wins out, particularly if their opponents lose focus on their goals. If there is no voice to oppose the only voice speaking is the loudest.

Another point to make is this: many of people of the world are not so clear cut as "anti" and "pro" however they may wish to define themselves. Put the seed of a question in a person's mind who is wavering, or has always been close to the middle and they can sway the other way. That is the WHOLE POINT of arguing and debate in terms of objectivity.

When pressed, a doubter simply shouts louder; as illustrated by the woman in this video.

We need to stop lending credence to this "debate". Yes, we make our voice heard. Yes, we take a stand. No, we don't bury our heads in the sand. We need to stop playing in their court. Going on these talk shows and opinion-based "news" shows isn't helping. It can't help. They can say we're cowards and blah-blah-blah, so what? They already thought so, and would have reinforced it had we shown up anyway. The return on investment of one idoit or doubter is beans compared to the rallying effect on the retarded masses.

These talk show hosts and guest speakers are trolls. Don't feed the troll.

We need to go to venues where it is unbaised, or at least semi-rational. We don't need to go on shows where all they are looking for is a warm punching bag.

 

[Woodsey]

Doesn't it just make you want to go crazy?

I think the worst part of this is that the audience agree with the manipulated statistics used by the 2 people that support the fact that video game support "video games promote hatred, violence and sexism."

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

I realise this has been done about a bajillion times, I just needed somewhere to vent my anger.

A few funny things about that woman:

In 2000, she provided the voiceover for a character in a pretty gruesome horror game, and she's also a sex-toy expert - a sex toy expert appearing on TV at 5pm debating things that are inappropriate for kids.

Anyway, the best part is right at the start where Tit-chmarsh says games have no ratings whatsoever. And his idea that a child would never put a DVD into a player and watch a film too old for themselves, but there was every possibility they'd put a game into a console and play that.

Idiots.

Also: Furburt has been banned?! Who else can I rely on to occasionally drool over Mafia 2 with me?

 

[Disaster Button]

Doesn't it just make you want to go crazy?

I think the worst part of this is that the audience agree with the manipulated statistics used by the 2 people that support the fact that video game support "video games promote hatred, violence and sexism."

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

I realise this has been done about a bajillion times, I just needed somewhere to vent my anger.

A few funny things about that woman:

In 2000, she provided the voiceover for a character in a pretty gruesome horror game, and she's also a sex-toy expert - a sex toy expert appearing on TV at 5pm debating things that are inappropriate for kids.

Anyway, the best part is right at the start where Tit-chmarsh says games have no ratings whatsoever. And his idea that a child would never put a DVD into a player and watch a film too old for themselves, but there was every possibility they'd put a game into a console and play that.

Idiots.

Also: Furburt has been banned?! Who else can I rely on to occasionally drool over Mafia 2 with me?

OH GOD BANNED? OH NO!

...Did you happen to check the date today by any chance?

 

[Woodsey]

Doesn't it just make you want to go crazy?

I think the worst part of this is that the audience agree with the manipulated statistics used by the 2 people that support the fact that video game support "video games promote hatred, violence and sexism."

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

I realise this has been done about a bajillion times, I just needed somewhere to vent my anger.

A few funny things about that woman:

In 2000, she provided the voiceover for a character in a pretty gruesome horror game, and she's also a sex-toy expert - a sex toy expert appearing on TV at 5pm debating things that are inappropriate for kids.

Anyway, the best part is right at the start where Tit-chmarsh says games have no ratings whatsoever. And his idea that a child would never put a DVD into a player and watch a film too old for themselves, but there was every possibility they'd put a game into a console and play that.

Idiots.

Also: Furburt has been banned?! Who else can I rely on to occasionally drool over Mafia 2 with me?

OH GOD BANNED? OH NO!

...Did you happen to check the date today by any chance?

IT R PRETND BAN?

[small]So, its a pretend ban you say?[/small]

 

[Disaster Button]

Doesn't it just make you want to go crazy?

I think the worst part of this is that the audience agree with the manipulated statistics used by the 2 people that support the fact that video game support "video games promote hatred, violence and sexism."

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

I realise this has been done about a bajillion times, I just needed somewhere to vent my anger.

A few funny things about that woman:

In 2000, she provided the voiceover for a character in a pretty gruesome horror game, and she's also a sex-toy expert - a sex toy expert appearing on TV at 5pm debating things that are inappropriate for kids.

Anyway, the best part is right at the start where Tit-chmarsh says games have no ratings whatsoever. And his idea that a child would never put a DVD into a player and watch a film too old for themselves, but there was every possibility they'd put a game into a console and play that.

Idiots.

Also: Furburt has been banned?! Who else can I rely on to occasionally drool over Mafia 2 with me?

OH GOD BANNED? OH NO!

...Did you happen to check the date today by any chance?

IT R PRETND BAN?

[small]So, its a pretend ban you say?[/small]

A lot of long time posters have been banned: IdealistCommi, Hubilub, Pimppeter2. The messages left in their "ban worthy" posts by Kiluani, a mod, are hilarious. So unless he's been injected with the brain of a small child after eating 700 Jelly Tots I'm pretty sure its an April Fools.