Skip to main content

View Diary: I am a Gamer (332 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My gut feeling is that many studies fail to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, Silvia Nightshade, DruidQueen

    differentiate.  A 5th grader shouldn't be playing a violent FPS, I think we can all agree with that.  But what about a 10th grader?  A 12th grader?  A sophomore in college?  A 30-year-old?  And we need to go beyond "good" v. "bad" - what are the effects, if any?  Desensitization?  An increased urge to commit violence?  Copycat behavior?  Those are all different outcomes.  Are certain people more predisposed to the bad outcomes?  Is it a blanket issue?  Is there a cutoff age when gaming no longer causes some bad outcomes?  Any bad outcomes?  Or do we need to take Halo 4 away from Grandpa?

    Of course, that supposes that bad outcomes can be proven at all, but I accept that some well-conducted studies are out there and need to be addressed.

    On top of that, I would love to see some of the studies take into account self-selection with some of the online communities, a handful of which can be vastly worse than basically all of the others.

    I'm not opposed to more data but often the gathering of more data on this particular issue has been deeply politicized.  It's going to be a difficult issue to get back into again without having to listen to James Dobson shriek helplessly.

    "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

    by auron renouille on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:46:32 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  You guys are starting to sound like the folks that (0+ / 0-)

      say "prove to me" that man-made industry has anything to do with global warming.

      Denial is denial and it's revealing the gaming community to be highly reactive and defensive, and in some cases actually aggressive.

      •  What denial? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stroszek, Ace Nelson, KMc

        Millions of people all over the world play violent video games and watch violent movies. Millions of people all over the world do not shoot up schools.

        Korea and China have major gaming-addiction problems. People in Korea DIE, literally, from gaming too much. What they don't have is mass-shooting problems.

        I'm not sure how much clearer we can make this for you. You can't blanket-blame games and movies for violence inciting crazies, because the evidence just isn't there. Just because it makes your world a little tidier to do or makes you feel a little better does not mean you are correct.

        People who are mentally unstable shouldn't own guns. They shouldn't play violent video games. They shouldn't drink alcohol. They probably shouldn't get into passionate Facebook arguments either. All of those things--guns, games, alcohol, and running your mouth on Facebook--are legal and can lead to bad things. What exactly is your point? The problem appears to be not necessarily the guns (I am a gun control advocate, for the record), or the games, or the movies, of the alcohol, or the jackasses on the Internet. Pretty the big factor here is the mental instability.

        Pretty sure the guy who shot up the church in Tennessee years back, and the guy who shot up the Sikh temple recently, and the guy who shot up Ft. Hood, and the guy who shot up the theater in Aurora, and the guy who shot up Clackamas Town Center last week, pretty sure NONE of those guys were gamers. I know this to be true because anytime a killer is a gamer, the media flips out about it and everyone knows exactly what game said killer was playing right before he went on a rampage (Dynasty Warriors? Really? Did the police not report the dual katanas this asshole in Connecticut was wielding? Why are we making a big deal about Dynasty Warriors? What a freaking joke).

      •  and you clearly are someone who doesn't know (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the difference between rational and extreme skepticism.

        I know you think you've got a clever ad hominem argument going here, but your "reasoning" here could apply to anyone who denies anything. Do people who deny that UFOs exist sound like people who deny "global warming?" Apparently, after all, they demand proof as well and, more importantly, "denial is denial."

        As for people being "highly reactive and defensive"... yeah, classic troll tactic there. People here get irritated with right-wing talking points too. I guess that's similarly "revealing" and means the GOP is right?

        •  I'm learning that gamers really like their games (0+ / 0-)

          above all other values, just like folks who like their guns like their guns above all other values.

          Neither are necessary to a good and rich life.  Neither are necessary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

          Both, often, in combination infringe on the rights of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

          •  you have yet to provide evidence (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            that the existence and availability of any video game (to adults - remember that games with graphic violence cannot be legally sold to children) infringes on the rights of others. With global warming, we have evidence - a lot of it. And with guns, they are the actual instruments used to commit violence. You haven't shown either in the case of video games.

            "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

            by AaronInSanDiego on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:38:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You continue to assert things without proof. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            But again, there are lots of things that aren't necessary to a good and rich life that, on many occasions, cause harm to people.

            People don't need their own cars. People don't need beer and wine. People don't need dogs. People don't need the internet.

            And, unlike video games, these are things that have all been proven to play a direct role in "infringing" on the rights of others.

            So which do we ban first? But evidently, that conversation is limited solely to things you don't personally enjoy. Of course, that's how authoritarian personalities usually operate.

            Quick question: did you support Bush's efforts to destroy our privacy rights? After all, those awful rights were getting in the way of protecting our "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" from terrorists.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site