Slashdot Mirror


Video Gamers From the '90s Have Turned Out Mostly OK (arstechnica.com)

A study reported on by Ars Technica indicates that video games, much ballyhooed (alleged) source of mental, physical and psycho-social ills for the kids who spent a lot of time playing them, don't seem to have had quite as big a negative effect on those kids as the moral panic of the past few decades would have you believe. Instead, There didn't seem to be an association between the number of games the children reported owning and an increase in risk for conduct disorder. When examining depression among shoot-em-up players, there was evidence for increased risk before the researchers controlled for all the confounding factors, but not afterwards. Of course, there's a lot of data to go around in the several studies referred to here, and the upshot seems to both less exciting and less simple than "Video games are good, not bad!"

239 comments

  1. Video games are great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make sure you play something that makes you react within milliseconds, and also has general strategy involved if you can. You can train your brain to make run and gun decisions better typically needed for sports and reacting against an emergency vehicle situation.

    1. Re:Video games are great by DragonTHC · · Score: 4, Informative

      or you could play the masterpiece, Portal 2. And actually get smarter while you play. So says Stanford et al. http://www.fastcompany.com/303...

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    2. Re:Video games are great by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      I swear I might snap at any moment, though.... rawr!

    3. Re: Video games are great by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      So in summary psychos play video games. Video games don't make you psycho.

    4. Re:Video games are great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost half as good as Portal 1.

      The main difference between Portal 1 and 2 is that in the first one the developers let solutions that weren't initially intended be left in.
      When you solve a puzzle there you can focus on solving the actual puzzle, not spend your time trying to figure out how the developers wanted you to solve this particular one.

    5. Re:Video games are great by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Funny

      or you could play the masterpiece, Portal 2. And actually get smarter while you play. So says Stanford et al. http://www.fastcompany.com/303...

      The wait for Portal 3 is driving me insane.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    6. Re: Video games are great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why do you need Portal 3, aren't you already smart enough from Portal 1 and 2?

    7. Re:Video games are great by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      or you could play quake AND portal.

    8. Re:Video games are great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm already "smarter" than Hawking or Einstein. I think I'll stick to CoD.

    9. Re: Video games are great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's going for the lawnmower man kind of smart and he's almost there.

    10. Re:Video games are great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cake is a lie!

    11. Re:Video games are great by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Oh please, everyone is smarter than Einstein. I challenged him to a math-off a couple of weeks ago and he didn't even solve one problem!

    12. Re: Video games are great by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      He's referring to the well-known fact that Valve is less capable of counting to 3 than Arthur, King of the Britons, is.

    13. Re: Video games are great by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 2

      "So in summary psychos play video games. Video games don't make you psycho."

      I approve this message, at least pslytely.

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    14. Re:Video games are great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The cake is a lie!

      No, the cake is a pie.

    15. Re: Video games are great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      in summary, if Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.

    16. Re: Video games are great by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      in summary, if Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.

      Hey, you just described my weekend.

      Gotta run, a couple of ghosts are following me.

    17. Re: Video games are great by dasgoober · · Score: 1

      Heard on alt.music.industrial

    18. Re:Video games are great by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      The cake is a lie!

      That is deeper than it first appears... 8-) 8-(

    19. Re:Video games are great by SirLordGodfrey · · Score: 1

      The cake is a lie, there is only pie.

      Through pie I gain calories.

      Through calories I gain fat.

      Through fat my waistband is broken

      Sweatpants shall free me!

      -The Overweight Sith's Code

      --
      "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
    20. Re: Video games are great by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      I think we'd settle for Portal 5.

  2. Paging Jon Katz... by Etcetera · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In regard to social issues, I do like that Slashdot is getting back to its roots at least! :)

    1. Re:Paging Jon Katz... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  3. Surprise by Mantrid42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just like the kids who grew up on metal, and comic books, and rock 'n roll, etc.

    1. Re:Surprise by Kohath · · Score: 1

      And the kid who drank a beer.
      And the kid whose family owned a pit bull.
      And the kid whose father owned a handgun.
      And the kid who read Huck Finn (no matter how boring he thought it was).
      And the kid who never sat in a child safety seat in the car.
      And the kid who occasionally skipped school.
      And the kid who played football.
      And the kid saw scary movies at a young age.
      And almost all the rest of the kids who didn't follow the rules we are all told are so critically important.

    2. Re: Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The ones who don't turn out okay are mostly the kid who was not loved unconditionally and comforted in times of distress.

    3. Re: Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that something *could* have happened and if it didn't it was just random chance. As a society, we cannot take that chance. It's as simple as that. We must not only expect but enforce conformity at all times. In conformity lies safety. Those who do not conform must be ostracized and marked as antisocial, and pressured to abandon their dangerous way and join the rest of civilization. And believe me... We have ways to make you see the light, especially in this day and age of blessed omnipresent surveillance.

    4. Re:Surprise by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly.

      When examining depression among shoot-em-up players, there was evidence for increased risk before the researchers controlled for all the confounding factors, but not afterwards.

      This makes it sound like playing lots of video games is a effect of depression rather than the cause. Which sounds just as plausible to me than it being the other way around. Just like people already at risk of social withdrawal, for them video games can be a great time killer.

    5. Re:Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do it as AC out of shame but this does not make it less true.
      Being social outcast and depressive obsessive I can only confirm that it works like that for me.

    6. Re: Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ones who don't turn out okay are mostly the kid who was not loved unconditionally and comforted in times of distress.

      Only drooling idiots love unconditionally. If your child is a psychopathic monster, you should treat it as such.

    7. Re:Surprise by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I think what they are saying is that the problem children are in some degree drawn to the "bad" games, but that the games don't make the problem children, nor make them worse.

      So, yeah, if you've got a random school full of kids, the ones with the visibly violent interests, be that metal, comic books, rock 'n roll, video games, or whatever, will have _statistically_ more problems later, but it's not a judgement in and of itself, and the lack of visibly violent interests is in no way a guarantee of good behavior in the future.

    8. Re:Surprise by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      It's actually kinda awkward to draw any conclusions from that as adjusting for other factors isn't trivial.

      Imagine, for a second, if A causes B, but only when combined with C, D or E. (And C, D, and E don't cause anything on their own, only when combined with A)

      A is going to look like a cause of B, but C, D, or E will be relatively difficult to correlate with B, especially if they're common. That may result in people assuming that, say, C had nothing to do with B simply because A was present.

      I know, I know, basic stats and all of that, and I doubt video games are causing (much) harm (nothing's completely harmless ;-)) but I'd be more comfortable with more studies.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re: Surprise by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Only drooling idiots think that unconditional love precludes treating a psyochopathic monster as such. (And someone who refers to a child as "it", is probably showing some psychopathic tendencies themselves.)

    10. Re:Surprise by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      You call it "basic stats" but to do statistics you need hard data to work with, which is probably really hard to get on for such a subject.

      First of all, how do you define your data points? Which factors are you looking at, and how do you quantify them? Are you sure you don't forget about any factors, like how many oranges a person eats per day? Or are you really sure that eating oranges is not in any way related to how many video games one plays? For a really sound study all that has to be taken into account, and when there is a correlation found that's only a first step. Causation still needs to be established.

    11. Re:Surprise by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yup, it is funny how every "next technology" is always scapegoated by the last generation. I've pointed this out in the past:

      1900 Film
      1920 Prohibition (Alcohol), Phonographs
      1930 Jazz, Movies
      1940 Radio
      1950 Dancing
      1960 Psychedelic Drugs, Sex
      1970 Rock n Roll, Movies (again)
      1980 MTV, DnD, Heavy Metal, Comic Books
      1990 Computer Games
      2000 Internet and "strangers online"
      2010 Guns

    12. Re:Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely. I confirm this anecdotally in my own life. Therefore, confirmed by AC.

      My version of tub of ice cream and chick flick break-up is weekend video gaming marathon.

    13. Re:Surprise by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Finally, vindication. Enough talk, let's celebrate!

    14. Re:Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And VacuForm (tm) fumes!

    15. Re:Surprise by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Since when are "guns" a "next technology" when they've been around for hundreds of years.

      Besides, the great Satan these days is social media.

      If they actually targeted guns as a problem with the same vitriol, they might do some good for once.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    16. Re:Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I liked the way you included guns in there as a scapegoat despite the fact that they are not new in any sense and have not significantly changed (which movies did), and that unlike all the other listed technologies, there's a lot of actual real statistics about guns and both national and international statistics.

      The thing all of those have in common is being new with no prior cultural standards or statistics or significantly changed such that people believed prior standards and statistics no longer applied. Basically, in each case it was about people being afraid of change.

      Guns are not even remotely in the same category, as they have not changed. In fact, it's the lack of change that scares people.
      The fact that the statistics have not improved, that cultural standards have been relatively stagnant, and the problems have not improved.

      I guess it wouldn't be convenient to acknowledge that the concerns about guns are real and multi-generational though would it.
      Go ahead, put them in such a list as though it validates your personal need to see guns be absolved of any social consequences.

    17. Re:Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, it is funny how every "next technology" is always scapegoated by the last generation. I've pointed this out in the past:

      1900 Film
      1920 Prohibition (Alcohol), Phonographs
      1930 Jazz, Movies
      1940 Radio
      1950 Dancing
      1960 Psychedelic Drugs, Sex
      1970 Rock n Roll, Movies (again)
      1980 MTV, DnD, Heavy Metal, Comic Books
      1990 Computer Games
      2000 Internet and "strangers online"
      2010 Guns

      Guns are a "next technology"? I would have gone with mobile phones.

    18. Re:Surprise by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I like how people are complaining that you included guns as a "new technology" but no one has argued that guns aren't being scapegoated in a moral panic like games and movies were. Apparently everyone now recognizes the scapegoating and moral panic aspects of the anti-firearms crowd.

    19. Re:Surprise by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Obviously not everything is "new." Next time I'll add a disclaimer "Don't take everything literally".

  4. Kinda dissagree by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I love video games and think any kind of ban is just stupid. But they aren't without harm. I have seen people put their jobs in jeopardy repeatedly playing online games late into the night. I have read about people neglecting their kids to play farmville, I have even done a few nasty binges where I would swear to "stop by midnight" only to look outside and see that it was dawn.

    I suspect that more than one life has effectively been thrown away to play video games. So while people might not be out there in droves pulling people from their cars after a few GTA sessions, I suspect that there are a number of kids who didn't go to collage, went to a crappier collage, or dropped out of collage, because of video game addictions.

    I think it is telling that I have met a probably going to die alcoholic who was able to stay on the wagon primarily through his newfound addiction to video games.

    1. Re:Kinda dissagree by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have read about people neglecting their kids to play farmville, I have even done a few nasty binges where I would swear to "stop by midnight" only to look outside and see that it was dawn.

      The big kerfuffle in the 90's wasn't that games were addictive, it was that they were violent and that we were going to turn into desensitized savages who want to dismember people. Basically this article is about kids that grew up on Mortal Kombat.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re: Kinda dissagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "college". Did you play too many video games?

    3. Re: Kinda dissagree by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      I once stood up a friend in college because I forgot about our appointment because I was playing Quake. That makes me a bad person. FACT.

      / Still friends with this person.

    4. Re: Kinda dissagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still want to dismember people sometimes and it has nothing to do with videogames. Rather with the annoying habit some people have of climbing on the bus while people are still getting out, stop to chat at the bottom of escalators like there wasn't anyone who needs, like, to get down from them and not staying in place in the queue. I don't follow through on the act however. Mostly.

    5. Re:Kinda dissagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To my knowledge, I've yet to rip someone's spine out by violently pulling on their head. I'm pretty sure I'd remember that.

    6. Re:Kinda dissagree by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      That is an urge control issue, like gambling. If it wasn't video games it would have been one of any other endless list of vices. Maybe if we holed everyone up in plastic bubbles with filtered air, we'd all go to harvard some day. Your argument has no place in the violent video games debate, go away.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    7. Re: Kinda dissagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything that has the potential of temporarily removing "the pain of being you" can be addictive. The addict is the one for whom this pain is constant and pervasive.
      The accident victim pumped full of morphine will not be an addict when they have healed. The one whose emotional or physical pain is constant, can be.

      Rignt now I have a debilitating cold, and an addiction to youtube videos from eevblog, because they interest and distract me enough that I temporarily forget my own discomfort.

    8. Re:Kinda dissagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I have seen people put their jobs in jeopardy repeatedly playing online games late into the night. I have read about people neglecting their kids to play farmville, I have even done a few nasty binges where I would swear to "stop by midnight" only to look outside and see that it was dawn.

      No, what you've seen are people who are desperate to escape their lives doing so.

      If it wasn't video games it'd be alcohol, or heroin, or cocaine.

      It's not video games that are causing the things you see, it is people who are unhappy with their lives finding a way to escape them. You're staying up until dawn playing because you don't want to sleep, because you know that if you do it'll be another day of your life consigned into history. You're worried about getting older and watching your life pass by. The video game lets you forget that, but it doesn't change the fact the underlying problem is that you just need to stop worrying about that shit because you can't change the inevitable - it's not under your control, so stop worrying about trying to control it.

    9. Re:Kinda dissagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why Offtopic? He is 100% accurate. Some things on Slashdot never change...

    10. Re:Kinda dissagree by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Why do you blame the games? Perhaps the job/spouse was at fault and the game was just an escape valve due to lack of any other choice.

      Define 'thrown away.' There is more to life than breeding and stacking papers. Most 'collage' is little more than a paper mill at this point. Most of the people going to 'collage' don't really belong there but are forced to go just so they can satisfy overstaffed HR depts.

      Addictive personalities can find nearly anything addictive if it gives them pleasure. Stop blaming things and start looking at people.

    11. Re:Kinda dissagree by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      This is just the new claim, video games are addictive and ruin lives.

      First they claimed games lead to satanism, then they claimed games caused people to be violent, lately it's been games cause people to be sexists, and they've been proven wrong over and over again. "Games are addictive" is just the latest iteration for busy bodies that have too much time on their hands and have a need to butt into other people's business. I'm sure when people start looking into it they'll find that, if it wasn't games, people with addictive personalities would just become addicted to something else. Then these people will probably move on to claiming games cause you to hate puppies.

    12. Re: Kinda dissagree by umghhh · · Score: 1

      I once talked about my violent dreams with a friend who is a social worker so studied all this shit - he says that most if not all people have violence fantasies. There are some for whom the socialization does not work and who actually try to realize their fantasies. This applies to soldiers too - most of them have trouble with killing, not at the moment when they pull the trigger but in afterthought which shows that their socialization works. There are all sorts of people - some enjoy hurting others, most not. I suppose this works even for children-soldiers leaving them as living wrecks if they survive their 'adventures'.

    13. Re:Kinda dissagree by RogueyWon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's complex. I've known two people who have seriously messed up their lives as a result of excessive gaming and one who came close (but pulled back at the last minute). I've known a lot more people who fouled up their lives for other reasons.

      The two I knew who seriously messed up their lives were friends from my university days who managed to get so heavily into the QuakeWorld/Quake 3 online scene that they failed their exams at the end of their second year and were thrown out (my university didn't "do" second chances). One of them went into the workplace without a degree (and is doing more or less ok now, almost 15 years later, though probably not in the field he wanted to be in) while the other enrolled at another university and came damned close to flunking out a second time (but scraped graduation and is now a teacher, so draw your own conclusions).

      The near-miss was more recent. A friend I've known for about a decade got so heavily into an MMO last year that it started to affect his attendance and performance at work. A few of us spotted what was happening and did a bit of an "intervention" (god, I hate that term, but I can't think of a better one). The immediate result was a week long sulk - but after that, he realised the danger he was in and pulled back from the edge.

      Thing is, though, I'm not ultimately convinced that "gaming" was a unique factor in either of those cases. In both cases, I think the social obligations that existed around gaming were a bigger factor. The Quake-pair weren't just playing the game; they were heavily involved in the competitive scene and had weekly practice and event schedules imposed on them by their clans. They both knew (one more than the other, perhaps) that they should be playing less, but didn't have the experience or maturity to tell their clan-mates when enough was enough. The MMO-player was, as he later admitted, more or less hating the game, but was so bound into his guild's hierarchy and structure that he felt he couldn't stop playing (or even cut back) for fear of letting other people down. So it wasn't so much video-game addiction as it was a kind of social entrapment.

      Thing is, I've also seen people mess up their lives even more spectacularly for non-gaming reasons. In my first "grown up" job, one of my colleagues was into mountaineering. Seriously so. He'd take months of unpaid leave each year to go on expeditions. He'd done a couple of Himalayan 8,000ers as well as a whole load of peaks in Alaska and the Andes. And over time, it destroyed his life. His marriage fell apart, he lost contact with his son and, when redundancies came around at the office, he was the first one out the door; his lengthy absences meant that people had gotten used to doing without him, so he wasn't able to pull the "look indispensable" trick.

      Another guy I was at university with ended up not just flunking out of his course but also winding up tens of thousands of GBP in debt. How? Poker. He convinced himself that as an "elite" maths student, he would be able to clean up. Turns out he couldn't. He ended up hopelessly addicted and throwing good money after bad.

      I've also seen people wreck their lives through mundane and even unpleasant stuff. One guy I worked with got so drawn into work for the building management committee for the apartment block he lived in that it took over his life to the point he was spending most of the working day on it - and again, he was out the door at the first whiff of redundancies. He always told people that he was only doing it because he felt people were depending on him...

      People are remarkably adept at finding ways to wreck their own lives and will use any tool at hand to do so. Games can be one of those tools and there certainly seem to be some people with a high general propensity to addictive behaviour who will be especially prone to gaming addiction. But for those people, I can't escape the view that if it wasn't gaming that brought them down, it would just be something else.

      As for gaming and violence, whi

    14. Re:Kinda dissagree by Kevin108 · · Score: 1

      I don't remember anyone really talking about video game addiction until Everquest.

      --

      It's a perfect time for being wasted.
      A perfect time to watch the stars.
      - Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
    15. Re:Kinda dissagree by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 2

      I don't remember anyone really talking about video game addiction until Everquest.

      I remember talk about video game addiction back in the 80's when you had to go to an arcade. There was even a short about it on HBO about a guy whose wife and kids left him, but he didn't care because all he needed was another round of Galaga.

    16. Re:Kinda dissagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Games back then weren't as realistic as today's. Not even close.

    17. Re:Kinda dissagree by tehcyder · · Score: 0

      lately it's been games cause people to be sexists

      No, I think it's more that games often crudely reflect the sexism in society, that they seldom have credible female characters, and that it wouldn't hurt to have more non-misogynist games to balance things up.

      But for the gamergate types, this equates to feminists calling for all shooty games to be banned.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    18. Re:Kinda dissagree by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      You're exactly right that those things have nothing to do with games. People have been failing out of school for a long, long time, for reasons that had nothing to do with video games. In fact, of my high school friends circle, the people who failed out were the ones who weren't hardcore video gamers. They instead "partied themselves out" the old fashioned way, with women and alcohol.

    19. Re:Kinda dissagree by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      What a horrible strawman.

      It was the same dumb argument when Jack Thompson made it, it's the same dumb argument now, whether it's feminist supporting it or not.

      I'm not even anti-feminist, but being a feminist doesn't automatically make you a good person, or right. Jack was proven wrong and mocked, Anita is proven wrong and, oh wait can't mock her because feminism. You're not doing anyone on the line about feminism any favors. From a neutral perspective, on feminism, I'd rather be called a misogynist and a "GamerGate type" then to associate with people who illogically strawman and demonize anyone that doesn't agree with them 100%.

    20. Re:Kinda dissagree by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Okay. I agree. So where are you going with that?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    21. Re:Kinda dissagree by jbengt · · Score: 1

      It's not video games that are causing the things you see, it is people who are unhappy with their lives finding a way to escape them.

      Bullshit. I mean, there is some of that in everybody, and that desire for avoidance can influence people's behaviour (I admit it has mine at times). But the companies that make games know perfectly well that the game does better the more addictive it is, even if they don't think about it in those terms.

    22. Re:Kinda dissagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty much classic escapism. I'm sure it's not lost on many here that most of these situations were about escaping some realities and if it was gaming or not was just really a side effect to the overall intent.

      But I will note that I believe the mountaineer friend, obviously not knowing him myself, was going in a bit of a different direction. I don't think mountaineering was his mechanism of escape as much I think he made other bad choices at one point and it cost him in resources to pursue his dream of adventure. Video gaming as an escape is easy, serious mountain climbing isn't something you just do to get away from a bad home life. It requires a serious investment of body, mind and money to even try to do a noted climb. Again not knowing the guy, I'd say that his home life was something that may have fallen on him from some poor choices he made and he felt somewhat obligated to making things as right as he could but at some point just let it go to do what he wanted. It might sound like a thin difference but I assure you there is a difference.

    23. Re:Kinda dissagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just going to bring this up. An old friend of mine dropped out of University because there was a dance class at the same time as the physics class that we were supposed to be in, and there was this girl in the dance class.
      Video games _are_ the poison for some people though. I stayed up late before a final exam playing a game, once, and learned my lesson. Not everyone can turn on their willpower when they need to.

    24. Re:Kinda dissagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. I quit video games for a while and then got into clubs, women, and hardcore drugs.

      Both wrecked my free time and sleep schedule, only one had incredibly bad come downs. I'll stick to the games now.

    25. Re:Kinda dissagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article itself says: The problem is that there are so many different factors to take into account, along with a swiftly-changing medium and difficulty in obtaining high-quality data—we'd need an avalanche of research to answer the question definitively.

      One of those factors is the realism of the game. If realism is a major contributor then you can't point at old, unrealistic games that people grew up with and say "hey, we grew up fine with those games" and extend that to today's games.

      I am reminded of something someone said to me once: if video games had no affect on people, then the military wouldn't use video games for training.

      I'm not saying everyone will be affected the same or by the same type of games. Again, there are many variables to consider.

    26. Re:Kinda dissagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there's one video game genre I'd be worried about an addictive factor, it'd be MMOs. The persistent worlds they offer mean a person can spend an almost unlimited time exploring and interacting with people. With single player games, you can always save and come back. There's usually an end-state when you're done with the thing. And it's usually possible to cheat.

    27. Re:Kinda dissagree by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Ah, I'm glad I asked, I thought you were going down a different path. :)

      I am reminded of something someone said to me once: if video games had no affect on people, then the military wouldn't use video games for training.

      That person hasn't thought too much about it. Video games don't teach you how to aim a gun. Or how to operate it safely. Or how to maintain it. Or how to navigate with its weight bearing down on you. What it does teach you is how to rapidly identify targets. While useful, there is a reason the police aren't being overwhelmed by teenage bad-asses that could stand in for soldiers. It's not even a factor of realism, it's the interface.

      I'll put it to you this way: Imagine two people standing on a skateboard for the first time. Both are physically and mentally identical, but one has mastered Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Do you imagine either of them being significantly better than the other at real-world skateboarding?

      That said I do agree with you that the evolving nature of games means we should keep studying its impact. Although I personally don't feel we'll find anything particularly worrying, the reasoning that we should keep an eye on it is sound.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    28. Re:Kinda dissagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > people who illogically strawman and demonize anyone that doesn't agree with them 100%

      Both sides do this.

      Which is why I'm waiting for both sides to grow the fuck up and start acting like adults, not spoiled children who want fascist control.

      A pox on both your houses.

    29. Re:Kinda dissagree by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I have read about people neglecting their kids to play farmville, I have even done a few nasty binges where I would swear to "stop by midnight" only to look outside and see that it was dawn.

      The big kerfuffle in the 90's wasn't that games were addictive, it was that they were violent and that we were going to turn into desensitized savages who want to dismember people. Basically this article is about kids that grew up on Mortal Kombat.

      This.

      And it is the same nonsense that was spouted about Metal, Comics, TV, Movies and Books (that weren't the bible) in the past. Same shit, different target.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    30. Re:Kinda dissagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with your statement is that Anita hasn't been proven wrong.

      She has been misrepresented as a straw-feminist, and all the 'proving wrong' only proves things wrong that she never actually claimed.

      So why is it that some continue to attack and harass her, and make excuses for the people that attack and harass her, even though there's ample evidence that the argument against her are actually not against the things she claims?

      Your single-minded desire to believe that everything she says is false has nothing to do with anything she actually said and everything to do with a baseless and irrational hatred of feminism and anything that feminists say.

    31. Re:Kinda dissagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if everyone who played games secretly wants to dismember people, but they don't do it because they've learned from games that you only succeed by doing what you're supposed to. Dismember even a few people and it's game over -- kind of a buzzkill because some dismemberment would really scratch that itch, but you're winning, so better not.

  5. Groundwork for future research by Soulskill · · Score: 4, Informative

    Full study here.

    Pretty tame conclusions, but I'm glad they're still doing research into this. I'm actually really curious to see what kind of psychological effects show up (or don't) as graphics technology gets ever closer to perfect fidelity. Not in the moral panic or "we must legislate this" sense, but just to understand whether and how a technology is capable of damaging us. VR is right around the corner, and game developers are focusing constantly on immersion -- this makes me wonder whether a sufficiently advanced game could cause PTSD, or a similar condition. I suspect not now, and not soon, but it'll probably be an issue some day.

    1. Re:Groundwork for future research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this makes me wonder whether a sufficiently advanced game could cause PTSD, or a similar condition. I suspect not now, and not soon, but it'll probably be an issue some day.

      I highly doubt it.
      The kid playing may call the set of polygons for "Carl" but that us just because this is the designator assigned to that set of polygons by the game.
      To someone who is accustomed to playing the game, shooting Carl in the face is a game mechanic decision, not a moral one.

      The closest I've seen a game come to a position where the choices made are moral ones is where the choices have no gameplay impact. Unfortunately it still changed voice tracks being used so the choices where still made according to that. Also, if it has no impact at all one can argue that there is no morality involved in the choice.

      Without real life consequences and the player being aware of those real life consequences players are not going to suffer from PTSD.

    2. Re:Groundwork for future research by aethelrick · · Score: 2

      (In my humble opinion) I think the key difference between response to a game and response to reality is the fact that the player knows one is make-believe before they engage in it. This fore-knowledge that you're in a simulation coupled with a desire to be there goes a long way to blunt the response your mind has to the input.

      If it's possible for games to cause PTSD, then I imagine it would be possible to get PTSD from film and books as well. I'm not suggesting that this isn't the case however; But I do think it likely that people who are prone to being overly stressed by experiencing traumatic events would be more likely to try to avoid them. This leads me to suppose that someone avoiding violent games/books/films etc won't be traumatised by them in a PTSD sort of way because erm... they're avoiding them. If on the other hand we force everyone to experience all the hard core violent games/films/books out there then maybe we would be able to traumatise a few of them. We probably shouldn't do this :)

  6. don't forget Eric Harris by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    don't forget Eric Harris

    1. Re:don't forget Eric Harris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the statistical view, Eric Harris exists. That proves nothing dumbass.

    2. Re:don't forget Eric Harris by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      don't forget Eric Harris

      Why not? He doesn't deserve brain room.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  7. Conduct disorder is all theu screened for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That particular condition is a very serious condition involving pervasive destructive patterns and anti-social behavior.

    There are many other problems to be screening for besides conduct disorder.

    Honestly it doesn't surprise me games weren't found to just flip bits to cause conduct disorder.

    This study doesn't really seem to indicate anything and is probably propaganda to skew peoples perception of video games by the video game industry.

  8. What about Anita Sarkeesian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean to tell me that the feminists that go on about video games turning everyone into misogynists are wrong?

    1. Re:What about Anita Sarkeesian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >implying feminists are ever right about anything

  9. Pacman - I've seen it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, because the 1980's studies were not conclusive. We weren't able to find any evidence of what playing a game where to go around chewing little white pills in the dark and listening to repetitive computer music would do to small children as they get older.

  10. Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Kunedog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a reason people dismiss claims of IRL "harm" the from Tipper Gores or Jack Thompsons or Anita Sarkeesians of the world. The burden of proof is always squarely on them, they almost always fail to meet it, and years later we (as often as not) get scientific evidence showing the opposite.

    1. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, Anita Sarkeesian did indirectly show that at least some of the gamers from the 90s didn't turn out okay, not that she intended this.

      Yes, I do refer to both sides of GG.

    2. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      That doesn't stop them from crying about xyz being the new moral panic. Then again, some of them are just out for the sweet victim buxs like Anita Sarkeesian, others are out to make a name for themselves like Tipper Gore, and others think it's their job to save everyone like Jack Thompson.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Darinbob · · Score: 1, Troll

      She has some very good points though. It's funny to watch the videos with all the male characters having strategic butt coverings, but not female characters. I know lots of female gamers now so the sophomoric "I like to look at female butts" rationales for over sexualized female characters. \\

      People overreact though, "raawr, she wants to change my game very slightly!" And GG had some very repulsive actors in it, they don't know how to debate so they decide to send threats.

    4. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, yeah, I'm referring to the doxing and harassment, which were mostly carried out by hangers-on on both "sides" of the argument.

    5. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by William+Robinson · · Score: 1

      Well, Anita Sarkeesian did indirectly show that at least some of the gamers from the 90s didn't turn out okay

      I had told her not to study my boss. She chose not to listen.

    6. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anita's butt video is a fine exercise of cherry picking and insane conspiracy theory nonsense. Nobody actually holds a board room meeting conspiring how to hide male butts, I'm pretty sure that the decision of giving Batman his cape was due to the fact that he is a character who is iconic for having a bloody cape but don't quote me on that. Not to mention that one of the DLCs for the very same game does give quite nice view of his ass. Her argument completely jumps the shark once she starts talking about how hard it is to see his ass, as if she doesn't understand how capes work.

      There are many male characters across many video games who do have prominent tight-fitting clothing and many female characters who do wear capes or less form-fitting clothing. Just in the superhero genre, you have most X-men, Spider-man, Green Lantern, Captain America, the Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer, etc...

      I'm not even going to get into the whole deal of how real-life females do tend to wear more form-fitting clothing than males and how one should control for the influence of gender dismorphism when it comes to portrayal of human characters, suffice to say that Anita offers to argument there because she tends to exercise the academic rigor expected of middle school students.

    7. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who are the feminists to dictate what goes on in them?

      Consumers, like any other demands/requests for content in games. If you think they and the people who listen to them don't represent enough of your market share to care, then you can feel free to ignore them. Although funny enough, those with actual money and marketing research seem to think it is more important to listen than those that want to make up statistics from their mother's basement.

    8. Re: Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Uh-huh. And which one went running to the UN trying to get criticism declared harassment.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    9. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      She has some very good points though. It's funny to watch the videos with all the male characters having strategic butt coverings, but not female characters.

      You don't play very many video games huh? Sure is strategic butt covering in here.

      People overreact though, "raawr, she wants to change my game very slightly!" And GG had some very repulsive actors in it, they don't know how to debate so they decide to send threats.

      Sure thing, lots of death threats there. You of course realize it's not a slightly. How's that Fire Emblem censorship going? SFV? GTA5? Those claims that gamers just "being localized" and all that(except of course when it's something they like...like steven universe then it's censorship)? If she actually gave a shit on anything she said, she'd make her own games and let the market decide if they're worth anything or not. But nope, she'd rather run to the UN and claim that criticism is harassment. And being told to prove her arguments is harassment.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do play a lot. You have some counter examples, no one every said it was 100% one way.

    11. Re: Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, if they don't represent enought of your market share but happend to be a very vocal, media-savvy and politically powerful minority you better listen to them... Or some law will be passed to appease them and your life will become hell. All it takes is a couple of headlines and a sympathetic person in a position of power and... You simply can't do something anymore. What a pity. You could still be free to do it if you had listened...

    12. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      She has some very good points though. It's funny to watch the videos with all the male characters having strategic butt coverings, but not female characters.

      You have a problem with a work of fiction presenting an idealised version of a woman? Those very same games present idealised versions of men as well - why is one a problem but not the other?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    13. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except for those who are not gamers.

      Although funny enough, those with actual money and marketing research seem to think it is more important to listen than those that want to make up statistics from their mother's basement.

      An argument from authority. This tells us nothing because their research methods could be bad or their reasons for complying might not be related to consumer demand (eg avoiding controversy).

    14. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      No, she managed to get online media (and some mainstream) to swap the burden of proof from guilt to innocence, and the games industry fell for it too.

    15. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well considering she's the one claiming it's 100% one way. Never mind all those fashion magazines, or romance novels either. She's just another scam artist, the fact that she refuses to debate anyone even when offered 5 figures or the donation of that money to the charity of her choice should tell you a lot. Even Jack Thompson would debate people after he was called out. He looked like an idiot, but that's more then what she's done.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She has some very good points though. It's funny to watch the videos with all the male characters having strategic butt coverings, but not female characters. I know lots of female gamers now so the sophomoric "I like to look at female butts" rationales for over sexualized female characters.

      Should be simple to make it so that if you choose a male hero, you get to see female butts, but if you choose a female hero, you get to see male butts.

    17. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Consumers, like any other demands/requests for content in games. If you think they and the people who listen to them don't represent enough of your market share to care, then you can feel free to ignore them. Although funny enough, those with actual money and marketing research seem to think it is more important to listen than those that want to make up statistics from their mother's basement.

      Well we've seen that already. Women make up the vast majority of the casual market, feminists whine and complain that the non-casual market which is primarily male dominated doesn't cater to their needs. Looks like the situation is working out fine and marketing and research departments are doing a good job of realizing that. So why is it that feminists and sjw's who in general don't play those games, want to shove stuff down everyone elses throats?

      If they really wanted to, they could make their own game and see how well it holds up under public scrutiny. My guess? Dismal failures much like the various walking simulators and games like Gone Home(note the disconnect between reviewers and gamers).

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    18. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BOTH sides of the gamergate thing were sending death threats and doxxing.
      Zoe Quinn is literally from Helldump on SA. (a doxxing sub-forum with "rules" that was killed eventually)
      Many people lost their jobs for DISAGREEING with them, not even supporting GG, just plain disagreement.
      She even sent threats against herself for crying out loud. Stop reading stupid news sites.
      They are violent, mentally disturbed people.

      Anita is harmless. In fact, Anita is a moron rick-kid parroting others opinions. She was a pawn for that guy, forgot his name.
      She hasn't a single clue about videogames, as she has proven consistently in interviews.
      That time where she could barely even mention a small list of videogames was embarrassing.

      If you seriously think this was about "rawr she wants to change my game slightly!", you've been trolled in to a false history.
      As they say, those with power write history, and you fell for those that you felt had power and were "totally honest".
      You fell for one of the tropes in the damn videos. If that isn't a LOL-moment, I don't know what is.

      Being there since before this whole shit happened, I can tell you quite honestly that the entire thing is vile on both sides.
      Of course, like all things vile, it evolved and legit believers in both sides jumped on board, which just complicated things.
      But it started off as trolls trolling trolls. That led to loads of innocent people being targeted, mentally broken people or not, when they got behind either side.
      It's cost several companies millions as well. (namely Gawker, but nobody cares about Gawker except retards)

    19. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeap, god forbids she stares to some male butt, all the while she keeps focusing in batman balls in the same video.

    20. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by tburkhol · · Score: 2

      There's a reason people dismiss claims of IRL "harm" the from Tipper Gores or Jack Thompsons or Anita Sarkeesians of the world.

      It's because every generation remembers something that their parents were absolutely certain was making the younger generation into terrible people. Facebook. Video games. Rock-n-roll. Jazz. Newspapers. There's a dozen quotes from notables stretching back to 2000 BC expressing the same, "Kids these days..." sentiment, all based on nostalgia for their own half-remembered, half-fantasized childhood.

    21. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of ladies like to look at female butts too - showed some study. So there may be a justification for that.

    22. Re: Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by LaurenCates · · Score: 2

      One could make a case for Roosh V being a misogynist (and this coming from someone who takes him at his word that the piece he wrote about legalizing rape was supposed to be satire. It's wasn't good satire, but unless there are women coming forward to accuse him of rape, I see no reason to say he's guilty of anything but exercising his right to free speech, and I'm compelled to defend especially the ugliest of free speech on principle), but I'd like solid evidence of Thunderf00t being a misogynist and/or "hate-filled" because he happens to not agree with Anita Sarkeesian and Atheism+.

      If being critical is your sole criteria for that, then every single person on this board is guilty of hate-speech.

      --
      Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
    23. Re: Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If being critical is your sole criteria for that, then every single person on this board is guilty of hate-speech."

      BINGO! That is, of course, exactly what they think. Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler. The emotional child's (aka an SJW) guide to discourse.

    24. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I wish people would watch Sarkeesian's videos (or read the transcripts) before making assumptions about what she says.

      Thompson claimed that games directly trained and incited people to commit murder. Sarkeesian criticises games for not having good female characters because that makes them poorer games (in terms of story, options for female players who want a female avatar, artistic merit etc.) Her argument is not "poor representations of women in games make people harm women in real life", it's that games, as a form of art and entertainment, should portray women as real characters with depth and personality and agency, like they do male characters, because that's the right thing to do.

      When she uses games to illustrate this, don't misunderstand what she is saying. She isn't saying "Ms. Pacman is oppressing me", she is saying "Ms. Pacman is an example of how early on in the history of video games the Ms. Male Character trope started take hold".

      Note that she doesn't need to offer "proof" for her opinion that portraying women (and men) better in games is the right thing to do. She is a feminist, her position is backed up by decades of feminist theory, and you can debate it all you like. She isn't making a falsifiable hypothesis, she is stating an opinion based on a large body of widely accepted philosophical work.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re: Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      One could make a case for Roosh V being a misogynist (and this coming from someone who takes him at his word that the piece he wrote about legalizing rape was supposed to be satire. It's wasn't good satire, but unless there are women coming forward to accuse him of rape, I see no reason to say he's guilty of anything but exercising his right to free speech, and I'm compelled to defend especially the ugliest of free speech on principle)

      The whole "right to free speech" thing is irrelevant.

      People have the right to publish works glorifying child abuse, genocide or Clippy the Office Assistant, it doesn't mean that they're exempt from debate or criticism.

      If you decide to exercise your freedom of speech by saying that rape should be legalised, you can expect a strong reaction, and not just from radical feminists.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    26. Re: Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      The whole "right to free speech" thing is irrelevant.

      People have the right to publish works glorifying child abuse, genocide or Clippy the Office Assistant, it doesn't mean that they're exempt from debate or criticism.

      If you decide to exercise your freedom of speech by saying that rape should be legalised, you can expect a strong reaction, and not just from radical feminists.

      I'd agree with your overall point but point out that this isn't free speech being irrelevant but instead showing that the right to free speech extends to both sides. If someone posts a "rape should be legal" article, that's their free speech right but it's also my free speech right to disagree with them and argue that rape should be illegal. If one "rape should be legal" author finds themselves drowned out by dozens of people saying "keep rape illegal", that's not infringing on his freedom of speech - it's everyone exercising their freedom of speech as well. (Your right of free speech doesn't mean people have an obligation to listen to you.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    27. Re: Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Have you read any of Roosh V's books? He talks at length about raping women in them. He doesn't consider it rape, but most legal jurisdictions would. It isn't clear if he actually did any of that stuff (he claims he did, but the victims have never come forward), but he certainly promotes it as the way a "neomasculine" man should treat women.

      As for misogyny, check out the worlds least enticing personal ad here wrote. That's textbook misogyny.

      Let's not forget the homophobia either.

      Before someone asks for evidence, just read/search his blog or check out some of the excerpts from his books.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wish people would watch Sarkeesian's videos (or read the transcripts) before making assumptions about what she says.

      You mean the part where she says that "everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic" or the part where she starts whining because it doesn't cater to her political ideology and she gets upset over it and goes running to the UN?

      Yeah, she's no different then Jack Thompson...except for her gender. Which get's her a free pass where any criticism is labeled has harassment.

      Note that she doesn't need to offer "proof" for her opinion that portraying women (and men) better in games is the right thing to do. She is a feminist, her position is backed up by decades of feminist theory, and you can debate it all you like. She isn't making a falsifiable hypothesis, she is stating an opinion based on a large body of widely accepted philosophical work.

      No, she needs to offer proof. The second she claimed she wanted to make the series to be included in the classroom and for educational purpose. And the second she decided that she wanted to go speak before crowds. She's wants to spew her stuff, but doesn't want anyone to turn around and call her out on her bullshit.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    29. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by bigpat · · Score: 1

      There's a reason people dismiss claims of IRL "harm" the from Tipper Gores or Jack Thompsons or Anita Sarkeesians of the world. The burden of proof is always squarely on them, they almost always fail to meet it, and years later we (as often as not) get scientific evidence showing the opposite.

      Population studies usually drown out subtle influences and factors. I think you have to look at individuals that do have issues and then see how the availability of games, drugs, booze, television, social interactions all come together to make their problems worse or better.

    30. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is part of what annoys me at the hyperbolic reaction to by Gamergate/et al. All the harrassment and death threats served to actually raise her profile in the mainstream media consciousness, and get her on TV shows that never would have cared about her or her agenda before. There are always going to be critics, and not all of them are inherently dangerous.

      Tipper Gore, as the wife of a senator and then presidential candidate? Yeah, I'd worry a lot more about her influence than Anita Sarkeesian, for instance. Jack Thompson was actually pushing for laws and suing people - yes, that part needs pushback. But someone posting videos criticizing video games on a youtube channel, eh, that's one voice in the crowd. Sure, have level headed sorts make calm, rational rebuttal, because that's how you deal with critics - not by unleashing the forces of the unfiltered internet id.

    31. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The problem with six second YouTube clips is that they don't offer a lot of context. What she actually said was that when you first start learning about feminism it might seem like "everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic", but as you learn you grow out of it and start to be more productive.

      In other words, she is saying the exact opposite of what that clip makes out she is. She is saying she doesn't believe that.

      Full transcript for reference: http://lybio.net/anita-sarkees...

      And the second she decided that she wanted to go speak before crowds. She's wants to spew her stuff, but doesn't want anyone to turn around and call her out on her bullshit.

      So, you are saying that someone must provide proof of their opinion before speaking in public to a crowd of people, just in case anyone disagrees with them and wishes to construct a detailed rebuttal based on their body of work. That's not how public speaking works I'm afraid, in fact it's always accepted to be an abridged summary without background information because you time is limited and that's what books are for.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    32. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      For the most part I'd agree with this, but you might be underplaying her skepticism a little by saying she isn't arguing "poor representations of women in games make people harm women in real life".

      She certainly is arguing that poor representations of women in games contributes to general atmosphere that ends up resulting in tox... uh, I better avoid academic jargon that's widely (deliberately?) misunderstood here.. behaviors by many that are harmful to women. She also points out I believe that such tropes tend to put off many women, who would otherwise be much more confortable dropping $60 on your latest blockbuster, but feel excluded from the non-casual space as a result.

      But Sarkeesian is also clear that a few sexist tropes in games are not solely responsible for harm done to women, that they don't exist in a vaccuum, and that it's entirely possible to enjoy a game and find a few tropes in it a little dubious.

      The biggest point I'd make to people who think, after being told by numerous YouTube "personalities" that Sarkeesian is an advocate of censorship, is that Sarkeesian's criticisms are constructive criticisms. She's not demanding bans or boycotts, she's saying "Hey, game developers, here's a few things you might want to avoid", and telling players "Listen, I know you love this game, just be aware of these issues when you play it."

      (Game developers actually love her videos in my experience, which tells you all you need to know.)

      Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where nuanced comments that are neither "BAN THIS!" nor "WE WANT MORE OF THIS!!" are understood. Most people seem to think that every argument has two sides, no more, no less.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    33. Re: Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's your opinion on Jonathan Swift and Irish cannibalism?

    34. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      So let's think about this for a moment. Say you're "profile" is entirely dependent on how much harassment you get. If you didn't get any then you're a nobody everyone ignores, but if you get harassed it means talk shows, donations, UN hearings, etc.

      IF that was the case, would you not play up the harassment you get? Keep in mind Anita was "being harassed" long before GamerGate was even a thing. GamerGate, made popular by the media it accused of being corrupt, simply gave her something, besides rando internet trolls we all deal with, to point a finger at. The only reason GamerGate keeps going is because people can't just let it go. It's gotten to a point where some people financially depend on it harassing them in order to keep patron donations coming in.

      If you'd like to see it go away, then stop blaming everything on in.

      And Anita isn't a critic, she's not a consumer of the medium and has no interest in improving it. She's not on the side of "gamers", she's an outside party that doesn't like people doing things she disapproves of. Ok, well she doesn't like people doing things Jonathan McIntosh disapproves of, she's just the mouth piece because no one would take McIntosh seriously as a feminist without a female to use as a shield for ACTUAL criticism of his ideas.

      With her it's easy to shift the focus of, "Man, that guy's an idiot" to "STOP ATTACKING WOMEN!!", seriously go see how well his "25 Invisible Benefits of Gaming While Male" was received. The response videos are hilarious, and note all of the response videos I linked are from actual female gamers.

    35. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The burden of proof is always squarely on them

      No! You have to Listen and Believe!

      Video games are promoters of casual misogyny, rape culture, sexism, exclusion, and white privilege. Gamers are misogynerds and video game characters like Mario saving princesses are reinforcing patriarchal stereotypes and furthering the systematic oppression of women!

      This is totally different to old accusations that games corrupted our youth or were murder simulators. Because it's right of course.

    36. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry. The McCarthyesque moral panic that the likes of you have launched on the video game industry make me disinclined to believe your or Sarkeesian's motives are honest.

      Note that she doesn't need to offer "proof" .... She is a feminist, her position is backed up by decades of feminist theory, and you can debate it all you like. She isn't making a falsifiable hypothesis, ...

      So you're advocating both the demonisation of existing, and the censorship of future video games (you needn't bother trying to deny either with the same mendacious arguments as your paragraph here ), you're advocating this and we, the victims of your moral campaign are not only not permitted to disagree, we cannot even question the argument. Your argument isn't even falsifiable and you want to use it to censor video games? Video games? Not in my industry sir.

      The new-age facism seeping out all over the web is downright freaky. Arguments like your point to a shocking intellectual and ethical decay in certain segments of modern culture. Jackbooted hipsters are trampling down the web, but happily it turns out treading on video games isn't so easy. So you hipsters can take your new cultural conservatism and shove it up your ass.

    37. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by jbengt · · Score: 1
      From TFA:

      The researchers focused on two outcomes of the DAWBA: risk for depression, and risk for “conduct disorder,” which is a term describing antisocial behaviors in children.

      Finding no significant correlation between video gaming and those outcomes does not really prove the broad conclusion of the headline that "Video Gamers From the '90s Have Turned Out Mostly OK".

    38. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1
      I highly recommend everyone watch the whole video, because if that 6 second clip wasn't enough to make you thinks she's batshit insane:

      Unfortunately many contemporary discourses in and around feminism tend to emphasize a form of hyper individualism which is informed by the neoliberal worldview. More and more, I hear variations on this idea that anything that any woman personally chooses to do is a feminist act, this attitude is often referred to as ‘choice feminism’. Choice feminism posits that each individual woman determines what is empowering for herself, which might sound good on the surface but this concept risks obscuring the bigger picture and larger, fundamental goals of the movement by focusing on individual women with a very narrow, individual notion of empowerment. It erases the reality that some choices that women make have an enormous negative impact on other women’s lives.

      So basically, women shouldn't make choices for their own benefit, they should make choices that only "benefit" women as a collective. Benefit here being entirely dependent who is making that decision, which in this case is "feminist" or Anita specifically. So tell me. What's the purpose of "equality" if you're "equality" is entirely dependent on making choices someone else decides you can make based on what's good for them? She basically wants women to cast of the chains of "patriarchy" and voluntarily lock themselves up with the chains of "feminism"

      And I'm not putting "feminist" and "feminism" in quotes because I disagree with it, I'm putting it in quotes because I disagree with people who are clearly using a well intended ideology for their own personal gain.

    39. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think she was quite clear when she wrote that, I don't know how you got from "it's possible that some actions a woman might take could harm other women, thus we shouldn't blindly support every choice women make" to "women must only do things that benefit women as a collective".

      Actually, I suspect you got there by deliberately misinterpreting what is an exceptionally clear and carefully worded statement that was obviously designed to avoid just such a misunderstanding. In fact, it addresses one of the biggest non-complaints that anti-feminists have, that "nothing a woman does can be wrong". Well, here she is explicitly stating that is not her view.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    40. Re: Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by scourfish · · Score: 1

      I read her transcript. She isn't suggesting at all that people "grow out of it." She firmly states that every power system is sexist and racist ( as a belief,) and that she learned to strategically choose her battles.

    41. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by scourfish · · Score: 1

      I read her transcript. She firmly believes that everything is sexist and racist; however she claims to have learned to be less whiny and annoying about it.

    42. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by scourfish · · Score: 1

      I double posted because my phone is stupid. Disregard this please.

    43. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Hell, as a red-blooded, woman loving man, *I'm* annoyed by a lot of the sexism in games. If I want to watch porn, I'll go watch porn. If I'm playing a game I want an immersive and plausible world, one where half the characters aren't puerile appeals to adolescent hormones dressed in skimpy armor that would likely get them killed the first time they entered combat.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    44. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You are correct, I should have made the distinction a bit clearer. While Thompson says that games directly cause people to physically harm others, Sarkeesian says that at most the harm comes from normalization and propagation. You put it better than I did, I just want to acknowledge your point and say I agree with it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    45. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What she is saying is that simply noticing and pointing stuff out isn't helpful and is actually just annoying. You have to transcend that and see it as a bunch of systems all interacting. So it's less about individuals or individual examples, and more about the systems that produce them.

      That's why she does videos that cover the history of video games and how tropes came to exist, and how game mechanics evolved to perpetuate them. In fact her whole point, and the reason why many game developers love her, is that often it's just these cultural tropes that are the problem and you can make your game better by avoiding them. It's not that some evil misogynist sat in front of his computer, rubbing his hands in glee as he designed another Ms. Male Character trope to keep the women down, it's just that they are a thing, part of a system.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    46. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely she found an overly wordy way to say "just because you're a woman doesn't mean you aren't helping to perpetuate mysogynistic stereotypes"

      A trivial example of this would be a mother who tells her son that he needs to pay for dinner on a date or he won't get any 'action" afterwards. She probably thinks she's providing useful advice, but defining that as "feminist" because a woman did it is asinine.

    47. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She was quite clear. That a small group of moral crusaders should be responsible for deciding what's "right" for everyone and anyone that thinks making decisions for one's self is, problematic. But you keep spinning those propaganda wheels. I'm sure someone will believe you.

    48. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely she found an overly wordy way of saying, "women need to do what they're told, by feminist"

    49. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      To be clear, she isn't saying that the way men are presented is great either. She is just pointing out that there is a problem specific to female characters, who are designed to provide titillation to a presumed straight male audience.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    50. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      What she is saying is that simply noticing and pointing stuff out isn't helpful and is actually just annoying. You have to transcend that and see it as a bunch of systems all interacting. So it's less about individuals or individual examples, and more about the systems that produce them.

      That's why she does videos that cover the history of video games and how tropes came to exist, and how game mechanics evolved to perpetuate them. In fact her whole point, and the reason why many game developers love her, is that often it's just these cultural tropes that are the problem and you can make your game better by avoiding them. It's not that some evil misogynist sat in front of his computer, rubbing his hands in glee as he designed another Ms. Male Character trope to keep the women down, it's just that they are a thing, part of a system.

      Some people refer this this type of claim as "conspiracy theory"

      In fact her whole point, and the reason why many game developers love her

      "love" is an interesting word to used instead of "fear". Devs that do speak out against here are often attacked, smeared, shamed and blacklisted.

      I know far more game devs that despise or ignore her, or won't comment her for fear of being attacked, than those that "love" her. Also "some devs", would have been accurate, "many" is intentionally misleading. You can't even get "many' slashdotters to agree with you, but you can speak for game devs now?

    51. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Some people refer this this type of claim as "conspiracy theory"

      Except that, the whole point of it is that there isn't a conspiracy at all. Tropes are not deliberately created, they evolve naturally. I actually said that in the text you quoted, somehow in your mind it became the exact opposite. Look, I'll highlight it for you:

      It's not that some evil misogynist sat in front of his computer, rubbing his hands in glee as he designed another Ms. Male Character trope to keep the women down, it's just that they are a thing, part of a system.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    52. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Muros · · Score: 1

      If they really wanted to, they could make their own game and see how well it holds up under public scrutiny. My guess? Dismal failures much like the various walking simulators and games like Gone Home(note the disconnect between reviewers and gamers).

      I was going to say that the "make their own game" comment was a bit unfair, but had never heard of Gone Home. I looked it up and.... please do not let them make any more.

    53. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by bigpat · · Score: 1

      From TFA:

      The researchers focused on two outcomes of the DAWBA: risk for depression, and risk for “conduct disorder,” which is a term describing antisocial behaviors in children.

      Finding no significant correlation between video gaming and those outcomes does not really prove the broad conclusion of the headline that "Video Gamers From the '90s Have Turned Out Mostly OK".

      Right. And I don't think the supposition has ever been that video games increase the prevalence or incidence of any particular disorders in children, but rather what negative (or positive?) effects certain types of video games and length of time playing would have on children already prone to behavioral or psychological issues. Whether gaming (amount of time spent, and types of games played) makes things better or worse for those kids both in the short term and longer run... But good luck finding a control group. Really you are going to have to just look at estimated time spent gaming along with preferred games to make any meaningful comparison.

    54. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      How is this overreacting? If she wants to see a guy's butt in a game, she should get one written. Keep your dirty paws off my games and get your own done if you don't like them.

      You know, there's something you can do if you don't like it: Not looking. I tried it on her videos and guess what? It actually does work, ignoring her really makes me feel better.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    55. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I will start respecting third wave feminism when it starts advocating for women to register for the draft, for more women in male-dominated blue collar industries, and when women start marrying men who earn less than them. For bonus points, eschew and rebuke female privileges and exceptions, like the "right" to slap a man, serve lighter sentences for the same offenses, automatically being granted child custody, etc. True equal treatment means taking the bad along with the good.

    56. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Although funny enough, those with actual money and marketing research seem to think it is more important to listen than those that want to make up statistics from their mother's basement.

      It's simple economy. They tend to want to cater to people who are inclined to buy their games instead of loudmouthed bitches who certainly won't.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    57. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Rhapsody+Scarlet · · Score: 1

      A story about how gamers from the 90s turned out okay. At first things seems great, people talk about how obvious this was, how earlier predictions of 'moral decay' turned out to be nonsense, that we're all perfectly well-adjusted reasonable people. Then someone mentions Anita Sarkessian.

      Oh dear. We were doing so well too...

    58. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Derekloffin · · Score: 1
      I think it is you who needs to watch the video's again, or read the transcripts. It's not hard to find her accusing games of having real life impact.

      Damsel in distress part 1:

      "Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it’s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women."

      Damsel in distress part 2:

      "Given the reality of that larger cultural context, it should go without saying that it’s dangerously irresponsible to be creating games in which players are encouraged and even required to perform violence against women in order to “save them”."

      Neither of these are simple opinions. They are implications or outright accusations of real life impact, which she has to prove. Even ignoring that, the implication it puts women off these games needs to be proven as well. Even though that is a relatively minor accusation, it is still a real life impact accusation. I think she could pull this one off, but she hasn't even tried to. Being a bit silly here, but truthfully she hasn't even shown that she herself has been put off the games as she claims to have played them. If you really want to show the game makers that they are missing out on a market, actually doing so instead of simply claiming it will go much further.

    59. Re: Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You tell us, since that person only exists in your imagination.

    60. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Right. Her points may be true, but it's like complaining that the fashion industry doesn't cater to men. It never will, and it's not sexist, it's just that men don't want 30,000 varieties of shirts and shoes --at least not enough for it to be economically viable.

    61. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well considering she's the one claiming it's 100% one way.

      When has Anita Sarkeesian ever said it was 100% one way?

      the fact that she refuses to debate anyone even when offered 5 figures or the donation of that money to the charity of her choice should tell you a lot

      What does it tell you? I know I'm not going to drop everything to dance for people's amusement whenever they feel like it, even if they have a lot of money.

      Also, wouldn't a scam artist take that, even if they knew they would lose the debate, because they are a *scam artist*?

      I don't follow Anita Sarkeesian; I only watched a couple videos to see what the fuss was about, and while I wasn't super impressed but I also wasn't offended by them as so many seem to be. It's possible that somewhere in there she says "ban all video games because they are only doing bad things to women 100% of the time and cause rapes" but I haven't seen it or any credible backing of the claim that she says any of those things.

      People don't accuse Ebert of trying to ban movies as a genre even though he published books on tropes, some of which he hated, and disdained eg. 3D movies.

    62. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're advocating both the demonisation of existing, and the censorship of future video games

      Strawman arguments are lies.

    63. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Aerokii · · Score: 0

      I wish

      to spew bullshit.

      Funny how clever editing that removes context works. The youtuber used it to say what they wanted people to think Anita was saying.

      I used it to show what you REALLY WERE saying.

    64. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      You know what?

      I'm perfectly ok with just feminism. In my mind there's no reason to be against people who think they advocate for equality and there's no reason to say, "if you believe in equality then you must do XXX", everyone has their own idea of what that is. A lot of people will call themselves feminist because they believe in the dictionary definition, but it's not a central part of their lives and they wouldn't support the crazies if they were in the same room with them. What I do have an issue with is, like you, "3rd wave". People that believe in stupid shit like, women can't be sexists, people of colour can't be racists, it's ok to discriminate against whites or males (they fucking deserve it). Those people to me aren't feminist, they're calling themselves feminist because it's the politically correct thing to do and makes it seem like they have a whole movement behind them, but they don't. It lets them get away with all kinds of other bigotry because they've fooled themselves into thinking they're a majority and certain people or people who share a certain ideology can't be wrong and they can't be sexists or racists or bigots or bad in anyway.

    65. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      Except that, the whole point of it is that there isn't a conspiracy at all

      Which is exactly what a conspiracy theorists would say.

    66. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be clear, she isn't saying that the way men are presented is great either. She is just pointing out that there is a problem specific to female characters, who are designed to provide titillation to a presumed straight male audience.

      The issue, though, is that to point out "a problem specific to female characters" is sexist when the EXACT SAME PROBLEM exists with male characters. Because "designed to provide titillation to a presumed straight male audience" is effectively screaming out "games are for straight male(s)" and hence it's not an equal or bigger problem even though male protagonists are much more common than female protagonists. Which, of course, is a catch 22; you want to play as a straight male to "live out your fantasies" or you want to play as a straight male to "oogle a female's butt". Seems like, given odds are good often the "male" or "female" part of that is irrelevant since it's often enough the same butt model...

      In short, the very choice on what to focus on is itself not merely an objective observation when clearly an objective observation holds that there's obviously a lot more possibly valid interpretation that are even more sexist toward male characters. To say that you choose to subjective focus on an underrepresented issue would potentially have some weight, except that without clarifying that point you're over-representing the actual issue you're focusing on.

      PS - I say this as a fan of anime and games who does see women as often overly sexualized but when I actually stop and think about the sexualization of men in games, it just doesn't occur to me as a straight male. Which moves towards the whole "intent" argument being somewhat absurd because if a lot of 3D modelers for male characters had intent to sexualize said models, that doesn't suddenly turn me gay or overturn the argument of female characters in games. In the end, our own interpretation of things have more to do with it than most things given our culture--look no further than female cleavage. Which makes the whole point of, well, do I choose games because of the sexualized female characters? No. Have I chosen not to play games (or consume other media) that overtly oversexualize characters, male or female? Yes. So, I am not part of the problem and really it doesn't matter if in fantasy people oversexualize males or females. What matters is what people do in the real world to actual people. That's something worth discussing and something SJWs of the 90s never cared much about, obviously except in their own fantasies of doom.

    67. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I've played a lot of video games over the centuries. I don't ever recall any idealized versions of men or women.

    68. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the loudmouthed bitches, by complaining loudly, can actual convince the small number of decision-makers to do what they want. Some of the changes might be so minor people don't even notice. Like introducing a gay character. It might be easy enough to ignore (or be appropriate to the genre), depending on the game, that it doesn't affect sales. But a change to remove all sexy women from, say, a fighting game, might be disastrous for a company.

    69. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The McCarthyesque moral panic

      Doesn't exist. If there's anything McCarthyite right now it's the blackballing of anyone who is even slightly sympathetic to professionalism and inclusiveness in the tech industry.

      make me disinclined to believe your or Sarkeesian's motives are honest.

      Meaning what? That's a lot of meaningless words that sound like some kind of condemnation but actually mean nothing beyond "generic outraged opposition".

      So you're advocating both the demonisation

      Who is arguing for demonisation? I see absolutely no demonization in either the quote you quote or the comment you're responding to.

      and the censorship of

      Again: who is arguing for censorship? Literally nobody has argued for censorship. Anita Sarkeesian has even publicly stated, repeatedly, that she sees the type of criticism she does as a healthy alternative to censorship, and opposes censorship herself. So please, for the record, please quote the specific lines proposing censorship. Not mendacious and sophistry ridden "Well, she's a feminist, and some feminists have argued for censorship, therefore anyone who supports her supports feminism supports feminists who supports censorship checkmate I win" type nonsense. Actual statements of the form (directly or paraphrased) "The best way to deal with problem X is for us to ban depictions of Y"

      you're advocating this and we, the victims of your moral campaign are not only not permitted to disagree, we cannot even question the argument

      Who is making this argument? Again, neither in Mojo's comment nor the part you quoted.

      The new-age facism seeping out all over the web is downright freaky

      I agree. Demonization of opponents through smears and lies. Threats of violence. Mob actions against people who disagree with the status quo and present power structures. The reactionary mob actions against people like Anita Sarkeesian and others is downright terrible.

      Of course, I doubt that's what you meant, based upon your earlier attempts to join in.

    70. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      To be clear, she isn't saying that the way men are presented is great either. Lying by omission - two parties are presented unrealistically. She complains that only one party is presented unrealistically giving the impression that it is prejudice, bias or bigotry responsible. The fact that the other party is presented just as unrealistically breaks her argument down completely.

      She is just pointing out that there is a problem specific to female characters, who are designed to provide titillation to a presumed straight male audience.

      You see it as "designed to provide titillation to a presumed male audience", most people see it as "idealised version of people, men and women". See any Hollywood movies lately? Notice how the men and women presented are nothing like real people? You seriously think that all those Hollywood leading men aren't designed to provide titillation to female audiences?

      There's a whole genre of movies frequently called chick-flicks that are designed primarily to indulge female fantasies. Hell, there's even series devoted to the very same thing (see cougar town). So why is it a problem when a videogame indulges male fantasies. Are only females allowed to have fantasies?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    71. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      I've played a lot of video games over the centuries. I don't ever recall any idealized versions of men or women.

      For a two hundred year old you sure are tech-savy :-). Regardless of pacman and tetris, games like the batman series, the far cry series, the CoD series, the doom series, the just cause series, the saints row series... and many more... all present a buffed-up man as the idealised perfect soldier, capable of waging and winning a one-man war against (in some instances) entire countries. If you think that that is not unrealistic and idealised then you sure know some hardcore men.

      For my part, all those men appear to me to be unrealistically perfect, which is why I am not surprised when the women presented in videogames are also unrealistically perfect. See Diablo II for examples of both in the same game.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    72. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      Why? While we're at banning genres or things you don't like are there any books, plays, movies, or other speech you don't want people to make anymore? Just because something doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean that it shouldn't be made. I don't get that argument. From either side. Sexy time games and walking simulators both have equal right to exist and the world is better for the diversity.

    73. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Decades, what was I thinking. I hate mondays.

    74. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by scourfish · · Score: 1

      That may be the case, however she still firmly believes that everything is sexist and racist.

    75. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by scourfish · · Score: 1

      Her claims that "poor representations of women in games make people harm women in real life" was basically stated by her as well during her "male power fantasy" claims.

    76. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tipper and Anita Bryant both independently later admitted that their crusades were fueled by emotional crises in their lives (Tipper's son almost died after being hit by a car; Bryant I don't remember or care) and rather than deal with their shit they got pumped up on Valium and antidepressants and then started telling the rest of us how to live our lives.

      Fuck Them Both.

      Sorry if you're in pain, but that is not an excuse for fascistic control. Tell me about your pain, I'll listen to you all day and night. Act out your pain in ways destructive to others, go fuck yourself and I'll drop you in your tracks before you impede/negatively impact my life.

      I am in pain: depression, grief, lack of self worth, self-hatred, etc. I live on antidepressants. No I didn't cause my own paid (thanks, Dad). BUT I DON'T TELL YOU HOW TO LIVE YOUR LIFE.

    77. Re: Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ANYbody drowning out ANYbody else's word is an infringement on free speech. And it's childish. And it's WRONG. And it makes you a fascist (right or left wing doesn't enter into it; fascism is fascism).

      You don't have to listen, but shouting them down makes you an asshole.

      Get a fucking clue.

    78. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'd said "Some feminists don't like the idea that men want to fuck women" I would have agreed.

      But your didn't.

      So, you're an anti-feminist bigot.

      See how that works?

      SOME feminists are idiots. Not ALL feminists.

      Can you see that now?

    79. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Muros · · Score: 1

      Ok, relax, I wasn't being (too) serious. People can do what they want with their time and money, be it watching celebrities on TV, people running around a field after an inflated bladder, or playing games like that. None of my business. But that game sounded awful from the review I read of it. Fair enough, I am not their target audience.

    80. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.quora.com/Do-femin...

      If there is a draft, most feminists agree that it should apply equally to men and women.

      Most however object to anyone being drafted.

      So perhaps it's not about you respecting feminism, but about you being intentionally ignorant of what actual feminists believe because you want to believe that they are somehow advocating double standards when they are not.

    81. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I can't feminism itself, as an ideology is a baseless pile of shit that has no need to exist. Women's rights is a stupid concept. HUMAN rights should apply to all. Women get all huffy about the unequal playing field, but the minute you suggest any affirmative action on their behalf they shoot you down for being "paternalistic".

      I once suggested that women be given a free day at the university gym, as many had complained about oogling men. Fair enough. But when I suggested the women only day, the most vocal opposition were... you guessed it... WOMEN! Those loud mouthed little twats were accusing me of furthering patriarchy by assuming they needed men to look out for them.

      I've seen this type of thing unfold other times since.

      Fuck feminists; those stupid self-promoting attention whores are women's worst enemies.

    82. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conspiracy implies intent, so you're being ridiculous by ignoring that neither she, nor the person you responded to suggested intent. They literally said the opposite.

      But hey, don't let that get in the way of deciding to believe whatever you want, even it it's completely the opposite of what others say.

    83. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I used it to show what you REALLY WERE saying.

      Feel free to go look up the entire context of that, I'll await as you prove yourself to be as ignorant as your comment is.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    84. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      I used it to show what you REALLY WERE saying.

      Feel free to go look up the entire context of that, I'll await as you prove yourself to be as ignorant as your comment is.

      Done. As it turns out, AmiMojo is completely right in that she's saying the opposite of what the clip you posted suggests. The quote below comes from the point of the panel referenced in the youtube clip, in which she discusses her initially learning about feminism, and then growing from that starting point into trying to do actual good.

      "I sort of joke about how it was the most liberating thing that's ever happened to me, and the most frustrating for everyone around me. Everything is sexist, everything is racist, and everything is homophobic, and you have to point all out, to everyone, all the time. So there's a good year of my life where I was just the most obnoxious person to be around.

      And then you settle into it, you start to understand that people have been living within these systems, and it was just sort of a liberating moment for me, and you learn how to pick and choose your battles, and that sort of thing, but, I think that's the critical piece here that we have to understand this as systems. And I really like what you're saying, because that's fundamentally challenging power dynamics. We don't want equality within these oppressive systems, we want to create actual real equity. "

      She's saying that the approach in the clip you posted isn't ACTUALLY a useful way to approach issues (and how awful she was when she was acting like that.) She makes it very clear that she doesn't approve of the approach you're ascribing to her. Specifically this is in reference to another part of the discussion, in which she's talking about the differences between sexism/oppression and individual choice versus those same things as a system (so, sociology.) The only way to come to the conclusion you've chosen is to either only watch the 6 second clip, or to willfully misinterpret her words in order to reinforce your predetermined conclusion of her/her cause/feminism/what have you.

    85. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's saying that the approach in the clip you posted isn't ACTUALLY a useful way to approach issues

      So what? So she changed her approach. She isn't changing her underlying ideas and beliefs.

      Darth Vader:
      I sort of joke about how it was the most liberating thing that's ever happened to me, and the most frustrating for everyone around me. Everybody's faith is lacking, everybody's power is insignificant next to the power of the Force, and I've got to point it all out in the form of choking people to death.

      And then you settle into it, you start to understand these people have been living within these systems of Imperial Rule, with the Stormtrooper Academy for Marksmanship. So now I pick and choose my battles. I only choke people HALF to death. And I just cut off my son's hand and offer him to overthrow the Emperor with me. A new approach!

      You: But look, Vader is saying his old approach is not ACTUALLY useful way to approach issues!

      Yeah, Mashiki's right. You are ignorant.

    86. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      I apologize for being harsh. It is just the core thing about this that bothers me is that neither side seems to care much about freedom of speech or expression. One side comes across as they want to ban sexy time games and the other side comes across as wanting to ban content that doesn't appeal to them. Personally I have found enjoyment from games catering to either audience or both.

    87. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      So what? So she changed her approach. She isn't changing her underlying ideas and beliefs.

      Darth Vader:

      First off, I can't help but think someone who was bent on controlling the Galaxy isn't really an apt comparison to someone who wants better representation in video games, but that's as relevant to the conversation as, well, the rest of your post, I guess. (Which is to say, not at all.)

      I sort of joke about how it was the most liberating thing that's ever happened to me, and the most frustrating for everyone around me. Everybody's faith is lacking, everybody's power is insignificant next to the power of the Force, and I've got to point it all out in the form of choking people to death.

      Informing people that there are systems of oppression/sexism/racism/homophobia/take your pick isn't QUITE the same as murder. I know you're just using this as an example, but it's rare I see an equivalence that's quite THIS false.

      And then you settle into it, you start to understand these people have been living within these systems of Imperial Rule, with the Stormtrooper Academy for Marksmanship. So now I pick and choose my battles. I only choke people HALF to death. And I just cut off my son's hand and offer him to overthrow the Emperor with me. A new approach!

      Ignoring again how irrelevant your example is (in that there's a big difference between pointing out problems in our society and outright MURDER), you're once more willfully ignoring the context in which this statement was made- which is to say, the difference between sexism on an individual level, and on a societal (systematic) level. She is not saying "That black pen on the desk is homophobic!", she's not saying "Eating chinese food is racist!", and she's not saying "AC's Slave Leia body pillow is sexist!"

      ...Actually, she might be saying that last one, but hey AC, what you do to your love pillows is none of my business.

      You: But look, Vader is saying his old approach is not ACTUALLY useful way to approach issues!

      Her old approach is largely irrelevant to how she is now, and there's only a problem if you think her underlying ideas and beliefs are a problem. So far, you haven't actually shown me that you UNDERSTAND her ideas and beliefs. Hell, you haven't even shown me you understand basic sociology. All I got from your comment is that you're a fan of Star Wars.

      Yeah, Mashiki's right. You are ignorant.

      I'd be hurt... if I had any real care for what you thought of me. In a world where I require your opinion for personal validation, I'd be devastated! You can call me names and insult me if you'd like- but it doesn't make you any less wrong.

    88. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, I can't help but think someone who was bent on controlling the Galaxy isn't really an apt comparison to someone who wants better representation in video games

      You can't help? No, there are plenty of ways you can help. It's called understanding what an analogy is and isn't. It's called getting a sense of humor. There are plenty of ways you can do to help yourself be more capable of understanding what other people meant in their words.

      My Star Wars analogy was to show that changing approaches is orthogonal to changing underlying ideas and beliefs. You spent the rest of your post talking about a bunch of other things you THINK my analogy meant to show, when I never meant any of those things. This is extra funny and sad because this sub-discussion is over what Anita meant, and here you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what I meant.

      Informing people that there are systems of oppression/sexism/racism/homophobia/take your pick isn't QUITE the same as murder.

      Indeed, which is why my analogy was not meant to make that comparison. As I said above, whatever you think I meant by my analogy is fiction in your head.

      I know you're just using this as an example, but it's rare I see an equivalence that's quite THIS false.

      Well, the only one using that example is you.

      you're once more willfully ignoring the context in which this statement was made- which is to say, the difference between sexism on an individual level, and on a societal (systematic) level

      Nonsense. I'm the one who pointed out that it's not her changing approach that matters, but her underlying ideas.

      Her old approach is largely irrelevant to how she is now

      As is her new approach. That's my point. What approach you take to promote an idea doesn't change what your ideas are.

      Her old approach was "everything is sexist/racist/homophobic and you got to point it all out"
      Her new approach is "individual and societal/systematic sexism"

      Mashiki cut off her quote to just "everything is sexist/racist/homophobic" to summarize her idea. You disagree, but instead of showing a different idea, you just talk about a different approach (that is, seeing all that sexism as systems, individual vs societal levels). That's not a new idea. That's a new approach to promote her idea that there's sexism in our society.

      and there's only a problem if you think her underlying ideas and beliefs are a problem.

      Wrong on its face. I don't have to have a problem with Anita's ideas to point out that you have failed to refuted Mashiki.

      So far, you haven't actually shown me that you UNDERSTAND her ideas and beliefs

      After you. It was you who had to show you have an understanding on what Anita mean to Mashiki. You haven't. I'm just pointing it out before he does (I'm sure he's a big boy and could defend himself if he wished)

      Until YOU can show an understanding of her ideas, it's pointless for me to try and discuss those ideas with you.

      All I got from your comment is that you're a fan of Star Wars.

      That's a problem on your part. My post had more than that, but you've been consistently bad at understanding what other people mean.

      That's also why I called you ignorant. I'm not saying it to hurt you. I'm saying it to drive the point that it is you who is so terribly terribly wrong.

    89. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by SirLordGodfrey · · Score: 1

      Eh?

      If you've ever been to the KotakuInAction subreddit, you can see easily enough that freedom of expression and speech, creative freedom in general, is held up as paramount for video games (though for all media, really).

      If someone wants to make an Intersectional Feminist video game, that's fine. Most people only care if the game is good or not, but the moment you try to ban things, or cultivate a hostile environment in the media that scares away Japanese developers... You're in the wrong.

      I've only heard bad things about "Gone Home", but I've never played it. But all I see is walking in the videos so I'm not interested.

      A game I'd recommend instead, if you are into "metroidvania" style games, is Aerannis. Main character is a male-to-female transgender woman whom was made so at birth because it is a Feminist dystopia where men have either been wiped out, or forcibly made into women via gender reassignment surgery+hormone therapy and some sci-fi shit I'm sure given it's in the future.

      The main character isn't a perfect goody-goody two shoes or awesome at everything either, they're quite crass and crude (don't wanna reveal their little backstory though).

      Funnily enough, a few "Feminists" (in quotations because they were more of the fainting couch variety rather than equity Feminism) lambasted the creator of the game because you can kill women in it - but there are no men left in this world, you're either killing women, trans women, or robots. So of course most of your enemies would be female.

      I loved the game, worth the $4.99 imo http://store.steampowered.com/...

      --
      "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
    90. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      She's saying that the approach in the clip you posted isn't ACTUALLY a useful way to approach issues (and how awful she was when she was acting like that.) She makes it very clear that she doesn't approve of the approach you're ascribing to her.

      I'm just going to snip that down and point out, that she does indeed agree that's the way to approach issues. And in not only with her other speeches, but in what she tweets out via FF she subscribes to that idea. This should help give you a very brief synopsis that she was lying through her teeth when she said "but I don't really believe that..."

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    91. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      ...? Are you serious? There's not a damn thing to support your statement in the link you provided, just several statements she made regarding the shit she and other women have had to deal with. And she's right about all of it, too.

      It's bullshit to be labeled a "professional victim" just because you're willing to talk about the abuse you've had to put up with.

      Assuming she doesn't play games because she's a woman is pretty sexist- and before you bring up the 2010 quote, she references gaming earlier in her life (unless you think playing NES games doesn't count.) Honestly I wouldn't call MYSELF a gamer either... not if it means being associated with people like you.

      The games press is in no way obligated to allow people to post whatever shit they want (harassment, abuse, etc). There's a private business and should probably take down things like rape threats and well, anything that violates their ToS if they're so inclined. She's not saying "if you disagree with me about gaemz, you should be silenced!" She's saying "Women shouldn't have to put up with violence/abuse when they're just trying to talk about games."

      She's also right about the Bayonetta reviews- not a whole lot said about the sexism of the games. There's an interesting aspect/dynamic to it regarding female sexual empowerment, but given that Nintendo worked with playboy for professional Bayonetta cosplay, you can't tell me THAT was about making female gamers feel good about themselves.

      And hey, in the last quote she's not even talking about games! Just about how many mass shootings in the US are committed by men, especially men who feel royally butthurt over not getting laid. I kinda wished she'd mentioned the entitlement so many men feel, but that's for another discussion entirely.

      If you really want to prove what you're saying, you're going to need to provide waaaaay more evidence. When her job is being an activist and pointing shit like this out, you're going to see her POINTING SHIT OUT. That doesn't mean she's pointing it all out- all the time, constantly. That doesn't mean she thinks literally every game is sexist, or that each individual man is evil.

      Though with the constant harassment/threats she receives, I'm not even sure I'd blame her at this point. How dare she be a woman who talks about our precious vidja gaemz in a negative light!

    92. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      As I was reading through your post, I had a lot to say... but then I came upon this little nugget here.

      Mashiki cut off her quote to just "everything is sexist/racist/homophobic" to summarize her idea. You disagree, but instead of showing a different idea, you just talk about a different approach (that is, seeing all that sexism as systems, individual vs societal levels). That's not a new idea. That's a new approach to promote her idea that there's sexism in our society.

      Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you really suggesting there's not sexism in our society? That people do not suffer discrimination based on their sex/gender? That's the only way I can think of her promoting the idea that there's sexism in our society is a bad thing. If you think it's a lie, then of course you're going to think what she's doing is evil.

      And if you really DO think that's a lie, then I'm concerned for the people around you. Are there no women in your life? Have you never spoken to one who's had to deal with men in the workplace? Have you never watched a commercial trying to use breasts to sell hamburgers/cars/web hosting? (Seriously, GoDaddy alone is a prime example...) We live in a world where you can get erectile dysfunction medicine for free on your health plan, but you have to pay an additional tax just to get pads or tampons for your period. Wait... Roosh, is that you?

      We shall now return to our regularly scheduled post. (But seriously, holy shit, dude. What the fuck?)

      You can't help? No, there are plenty of ways you can help. It's called understanding what an analogy is and isn't. It's called getting a sense of humor. There are plenty of ways you can do to help yourself be more capable of understanding what other people meant in their words.

      My Star Wars analogy was to show that changing approaches is orthogonal to changing underlying ideas and beliefs. You spent the rest of your post talking about a bunch of other things you THINK my analogy meant to show, when I never meant any of those things. This is extra funny and sad because this sub-discussion is over what Anita meant, and here you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what I meant.

      Oh, I know you were making an analogy- the problem is, it's a pretty fukken shit analogy. No one compares someone to Hitler because that person's art is bad. The people/things/objects you choose to make an analogy with have meaning beyond what you intended. As for the lack of a sense of humor, it's not my fault your joke sucks. It did give me a good opportunity to practice my Vader impression though when reading your post to my coworkers... that was good for a laugh, so thanks, I think.

      Indeed, which is why my analogy was not meant to make that comparison. As I said above, whatever you think I meant by my analogy is fiction in your head.

      Again, not my fault your analogy sucks. Just for your future reference, here's what analogy means:

      analogy

      a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification. "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"

      a correspondence or partial similarity. "the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"

      a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects. "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

      Choose your analogies carefully, and be mindful of who you make comparisons to. I'm actually a little surprised you didn't jump right to Hitler, but hey, at least Vader was redeemable.

      Well, the only one using that example is you.

      Eh, so it's not an "example". Poor word choice on my part, but largely irrelevant to the content of the discussion. I won't begrudge you for nitpicking, I've got so many other things to begrudge you over.

      Nonsense. I'm the on

    93. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that, the whole point of it is that there isn't a conspiracy at all

      Which is exactly what a conspiracy theorists would say.

      Somehow, I wonder if you're not seeing the irony here...

  11. yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Srlsy we okay bro FUCKYOUASSHOLE caus we know wherr we at RELOADDIEDIEDIEASSHT an it never gets seen JCKTHEFCKOFFDCKWAD that we fit in wth everyone else n stuff

  12. Upshot seems to both by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Timmah!

  13. Re:Important Stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    * Please try to keep posts on topic.

  14. Everything old is new again by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately the newest moral panic is the representation of women in video games leading to rape culture, misogyny, and what ever else the moral crusaders have within their sights.

    Will we ever learn?

    And suppose there was a clear link between videogames and violence, exactly what is to be done? There were riots when the Rites of Spring was first performed, yet it is not damnatio memoriae, almost as if these relationships aren't quite as static as we are lead to believe, which is why there is so much conflicting data.

    Most of these "studies" make for a nice pseudo-science justification for a particular set of biases, only a few steps removed from "it is witchcraft" and as luck would have it, nothing of the moral crusaders' most cherished is placed under the same scrutiny.

    I have had about enough, thank you, whether it is hate-speech, "radicalization", or whatever mores of the age; surprise! people are influenced from the environment, but that is hardly just cause for the morally indignant to lord over all of creation.

    1. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a clear link between video games and violence: the more time you spent playing games, less time you have to commit violence IRL. Also it serves to blow steam and helps channel anger and frustration in a virtual world instead of the physical one.

    2. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, there is a wider problem of women being portrayed in the media only in specific narrow roles. Video games unfortunately get singled out, possibly because they're seen as less entrenched than TV/Hollywood/etc, or maybe it's that people are just used to scapegoating video games. The problem isn't that having attractive/sexy characters, portraying them in sexual ways, or any of that - it's the lack of anything else. I do wish that instead of bitching about the latest DoA Beach Volleybounce, that critics such as Anita Sarkeesian would focus on encouraging games that have different and positive portrayals, such as games with female primary characters that exist for reasons beyond just eye candy. And that's not to say that a female protagonist can't be attractive, but rather, to say you can indeed have both at once.

      The reason things like this are important is because of the signals it sends to girls, especially at a young age. The more that media sends the signal of "this is not for you" the less interest they'll have in it, so it's nice to have some that say "Hey, cool, you can join in this too", which leads to a wider audience. This is a good thing for video games, because having roughly half the population be dismissed and discouraged from gaming is part of what leads to this sort of crap in the first place, with lots of women predisposed to think negatively of video games (and the men who play them).

    3. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused at how you've managed to jump from "video games contain expressions of rape culture" to "video games cause violence".
      It's nonsensical.

      We've had these discussions in other mediums already and it wasn't the end of the world. It's the people refusing to have these discussions in a rational manner that are actually engaging in moral panic. Claims that "moral crusaders" will ruin everything are basically a moral panic about progressive change. Oh noes, the world might be slightly different!

      The reality is that when movies started getting criticism for racism, sexism and other forms of misrepresentation they have gradually improved and no one is worse off. It's not standard in criticism of movies that we discuss such issues.

      So why the resistance to doing so about video games?
      Why the hysterical ravings that we should ignore all these things?

      We were capable of acknowledging both these truths about movies:
      1. Movie violence doesn't cause people to be violent.
      2. Movie social misrepresentations do cause social impacts to people.

      But for some reason people panic when the exact same things are said about video games.

      Stop pretending that people making the second claim are actually claiming causation of violence.
      Stop pretending that "social misrepresentation causes social consequences" means "violent depictions make people violent".

      WILL you ever learn?

  15. Results are skewed? by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They didn't even get to ask the ones who are dead or still in prison did they? What happened to the other 2/3 when they started the study? Even with the people that did respond there is a clear pattern of puzzle games being increasingly more popular over violent types as the person's education level rises.

    I am not sure what to make of it all but I am still glad I installed these games on all the machines on my LAN, http://www.chiark.greenend.org...

    1. Re:Results are skewed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > pattern of puzzle games being increasingly more popular over violent types as the person's education level rises.

      Correlation != causation.

      Smart people can only get so much satisfaction from blood and gore. Dumb people can't really get satisfaction from puzzles they can't solve. As a general rule anyway. There's always the outliers.

  16. In other words by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Sitting six inches from a CRT wasn't so bad for you after all.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  17. I definitely didn't turn out OK... by tlambert · · Score: 5, Funny

    I definitely didn't turn out OK... in fact, I died of dysentery.

    1. Re:I definitely didn't turn out OK... by Lodlaiden · · Score: 0

      No mod points.

      --
      Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
    2. Re:I definitely didn't turn out OK... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      Your family should totally sue the makers of Oregon Trail for making you think that you could safely ford that river.

    3. Re:I definitely didn't turn out OK... by Hydrian · · Score: 1

      I would never try to cross a river in anything made by Ford!

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished.
  18. Said the same about: books, music,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you read the wrong books x years ago, you were a deviant and likely to incite riots, kill people, etc... (catcher in the rye,...)
    If you listen to the wrong music, you were a satanist who raped, killed, etc.. (Marilyn Manson,...)
    And now they say the same about video games.

    People still read and listen to music but now when something bad happens, they never mention anything about what type of music or books they had. I guess that miraculously the bad effects were mitigated.

    I predict that in the future people will claim that VR (or something else that will become popular) causes deviant behaviour and caused people to flip out and kill.

    1. Re:Said the same about: books, music,... by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I've been reading some parenting books by William Sears, and although he is renown as a pediatrician, I was quite surprised at how he was clearly swept up in the moral panics of the 90s. I read his "Discipline Book" that was written during that time and though I agree with a lot of his advice, he totally took the violent movies, violent games, and even rock music moral panics seriously. He was very concerned about the impact that violence in media would have on his eight(!) children. He even wrote about the time one of his children snuck out to a rock concert against his wishes. Damn, and he was bothered by "Beavis and Butt-Head". He said that he was relieved when he found out that Butt-Head means "imbecile". Uh, hey Beavis, someone should tell that doctor that three of his kids grew up to be doctors, too, in spite of Beavis and Butt-Head. /rant

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  19. Re: Except the Gamergators, MRA's and PUA's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, show me a successful police investigation which found thousands of men scheming to rape a few Twitter stars. You won't find it because Harper and the other ladies targeted by the gamergate strawman invented the whole thing to get protection money from the games industry lol.

  20. Supreme Court by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    Just like the kids who grew up on metal, and comic books, and rock 'n roll, etc.

    When the Supreme Court considered the free speech case about parental permission for violent video games, one of the things they knew (although not in the opinion) was that their law clerks had grown up playing Mortal Kombat.

    And they turned out okay.

  21. This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No shit.

  22. Me as an example by future+assassin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm doing ok, I got a successful retail business and I got pretty straight morals, yes I've done things as a teenage that makes my kids and others go WTF? But that's another time and place in history.

    We use to play TONS of video games, believe it or not we actually walked in snow and -10+ temps for 30-45 min each way to the closest video game rental place (Overwaitea Food). One day a few buddies of mine came over and asked me to stash some Nintendo machines and box on top of boxes of games. I sure as hell didn't mind as my eye and thumbs twitches at the gloriousness that will be happening to me in the next few week of my teenage life. I truly had a Nintendo thumb and 3 hours of sleep for weeks. Well it turned out fine for me and majority of my friends.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re: Me as an example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irrelevant! Just your opinion! Anedoctal evidence is no evidence! There are SO MANY THINGS WE DON'T KNOW! Just one of them may have turned out violent, without you being aware of it! We must ban those murder simulators! If it saves just one life, it's worth it! Ban everything, like in Europe! And kill all those who don't fit in, LIKE IN EUROPE! MAKE ME SAFE NOW!!!

    2. Re:Me as an example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I can tell worse results came out of people imitating Beavis & Butthead than any video games. Unless there are news stories about children harnessing the power of electricity, ice or other supernatural powers and killing people with it then shouting FATALITY that I never heard about.

  23. I use video games in mental health by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've used Pokemon, D&D, Minecraft, and Goldeneye as tools over the years in my practice as a case worker and group facilitator, and these things have been blessings. I've had colleagues frustrated that they can't connect with clients that I've forged good relationships, and I explain that I traded them a rare pokemon and they opened up. There have been cases where videogame addiction has been problematic, but for the most part, it's just a form of media, and having a strong handle on it allows you to connect and bond with kids, creating teachable moments and whatnot.

  24. Re:Relativism by arth1 · · Score: 2

    What has this got to do with video games? Who knows? But we must understand that this generation is one of the most mentally fucked up generations to have ever walked the face of the earth. So, saying 90's vido gamers turned out 'ok', is clearly bullshit.

    I think the idea is that they turned out okay compared to non-gamers from the same time period. Although it's next to impossible to exclude other correlating factors, because those who played games likely had more similar demographics than compared with those who didn't.

    As for speculations of why the late 30 early 40 somethings of today are so fucked up, I would guess that the conservative resurgence and Mrs. Reagan and "no child left behind" is part of the problem. A coddled generation taught to rote learn and not to think, and that the grown ups would do all the thinking for them. Not a good recipe for brilliance, in my opinion.

  25. Increased cannabis usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... relative to the general population. Not saying it's a bad thing, but most of the gamers from the 90s I know (that till game, anyway) are also heavy smokers. Granted, this is a small sample size (25-30) but the trend is still interesting.

    Anyone else experience similar?

    captchgotchya: gorges (as in gorges on Doritos and Mountain Dew after smoking a bunch of weed and playing Fallout 4 for days)

  26. Possible issues by symes · · Score: 2

    There are games and there are games. And my guess is that games that map onto the real world more closely may have more intrusive effects than others. How could PacMan realistically affect real world functioning? You are guiding a blob of pixels around a maze, there are no real world corollaries to this. However, interacting with with photo realistic others in simulated environments could have a very positive impact. Take as an example some vulnerable kids who have learned to deal with others with aggression, then expose them to a simulated where game play success is only achieved through appropriate interactions, we might see positive effects in real world behaviour. At least this is the thinking of some developmental behavioural scientists... whose names and work I cannot at the moment find.

    1. Re:Possible issues by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Actually, Pac-Man may be the cause of today's obesity epidemic. All those kids spent their childhood playing a game where the object was to eat everything as quickly as possible, and then they became fat... that can't be a coincidence!

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    2. Re:Possible issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also, some 15-20 years ago, when some PacMan players were in their mid-teens:
      - techno music popularity
      - drugs (extasy)

      "If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."

  27. It's the same with books. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    I have even done a few nasty binges where I would swear to "stop by midnight" only to look outside and see that it was dawn.

    Losing oneself in a book, reading until the break of dawn cause you "just couldn't put the book down" is a common occurrence.
    Often referred to with a dose of nostalgia and sympathy, along with reading with a flashlight, under the covers.

    It's not the medium - it's the message.
    Humans are suckers for vicarious experiences.
    Particularly in the form of fiction - but they will also gladly waste hours and travel miles to watch millionaires kick or throw a ball around.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  28. Wait, Science shows Anita Sarkeesian is WRONG? by Hashead · · Score: 0

    I'll be damned. Here I thought here claims were "well researched" and scientific. Turns out it was wasn't, and science in fact shows that she is completely wrong.
    I wonder what other feminist claims are equally unsupported by evidence..

  29. Re:Relativism by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    Even if you're right, you haven't linked games as a cause..

  30. Re:Except the Gamergators, MRA's and PUA's by Hashead · · Score: 2

    Adult children who live in a deluded world view where women are either villains, trophies, and the reason women won't have sex with them is entirely because they're disgusting. How much of that is from video games? It can be argued that the degrading treatment of women in the games played a role, but it could also just be that they don't get out of their moms basement to see the world isn't the awful place that they think it is.

    As opposed to adult children who live in a deluded world view where women are perpetual victims of a mysterious and mythical patriarchy?
    The worst thing video gamers have become is skeptical of feminism? Yeah, that's a result of not just listening and believing, but of actually employing healthy skepticism. Modern second wave feminsm does not hold up to such scrutiny, so it can safely be dismissed as false. Thankfully, more and more people are doing this, and feminism true nature is becoming clear to more and more people. Hopefully this cancer will be gone from politics and academia in a decade.

  31. Carmageddon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Once upon a time if you enjoyed this ped smearing car with bonuses for artistic impression it was believed you may be deranged, psychopathic (when that was still a definition) or worse.

    Since then I played games like Manhunt, Hitman, Postal, GTA and a wide array of other less controversial games.

      Now I take my kids to have ice cream and we watch car crash videos together. -see? Now I'm helping a new generation grow up normal.

      (Whatever the fuck normal means.)

    1. Re:Carmageddon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normal is what feminists of the day says it is.

  32. Regulating Games was Never About Violence by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    The massive push to regulate games was never about preventing violence. In fact, the big push to regulate anything is never about what they say it's about.

    It is always about one thing and one thing only: money. The gaming industry is enormous, and largely unregulated. Politicians see a cash cow here but need a way to convince voters to give them the authority to regulate and tax it to death. Currently the federal government has very little authority, even under the Commerce Clause, to regulate or tax video games.

    Politicians on both sides of the two-party aisle would love to get their grubby little paws into the gaming cookie jar. The leftists would love to say how they're protecting children while the whackjobs on the right want to protect our morals. Of course, that'll cost money - a lot of money - which they will spend on making policy friendly to their sponsors.

    I imagine game companies everywhere would be busting down the doors on Capitol Hill the morning after game regulation authority was passed to make sure they set up large campaign contributions to the right politicians.

    1. Re:Regulating Games was Never About Violence by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      It's not just politicians looking for the go ahead here. There's a whole industry of leches, "academics", "critics" and "journalists" who need this to be true so they can continue pushing their personal "research", "critiques" and clickbait. Getting politicians to recognize it is just the first step in getting government funding and expanding their reach / credibility.

    2. Re:Regulating Games was Never About Violence by JustNiz · · Score: 2

      It isn't only about money.
      Due to the insane blame culture is US society, there is a LOT of parents that think whenever their little darlings do something bad it must always be someone elses fault, and video games have always been an easy target.

  33. W007 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty sure kids in my generation knew you don't do what the video game does. Oh and I'm pretty sure my generation knew Acme wouldn't sell you TNT all the time, or a catapult, or anything else the coyote got. There's this thing called common sense we all got when we were young....

  34. Hasn't this been repeatedly debunked? by EdwardFurlong · · Score: 1

    Having basically step-kids I am not worried about the violent part of the video games, but how much time they spend on either video games or their phones (which seems like every waking hour).

  35. Study only considered violent games, not PacMan by dlenmn · · Score: 1

    How could PacMan realistically affect real world functioning?

    Unfortunately, the summary is missing an important fact: the study _did_ control for the type of games played; the study (at least attempted) to only measure the effect of violent video games, although they relied on self-reporting of game type by the children who played them (a method which, while much better than nothing, still has issues). So yeah, the study authors are well aware that PacMan isn't going to cause violence.

  36. "controlled for confounding factors"... by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    In other words, the study conclusively showed that the idiots had cause and effect backwards: Violent kids liked violent video games, rather than violent video games turned kids violent.. Which is what most intelligent people realized was going on long ago.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  37. Every generation.... by cogeek · · Score: 1

    Every generation talks about how the current generation of teenagers will be complete wastes because of ________ (fill in the blank.) In the 50s it was Rock and Roll, in the 60s it was drugs and the hippie movement, in the 70s it was drugs and disco, in the 80s it was just drugs, the 90s it was violent video games, in the 00s it was a generation with no motivation. In each case the result has been the same. Kids that are ok as kids turn out ok as adults. Kids that are messed up as kids turn into messed up adults. We can always try and find something to blame it on, and in many cases it does have to due with the environment they grow up in, but sometimes broken is just broken.

  38. For those of you too young to remember by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1
    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  39. Different Games In The 90's by Hydrian · · Score: 1

    I'm both a long time gamer and and a thirty-something father with 5 kids. I started playing games with the Ataris and an IBM PCjr. I think gaming is great but I can see where it will not always be that way.

    My issue isn't so much the games but the gaming industry. In the 90's VERY few games had a cost after the retail purchase. The only one I can think of at the time was Ultima Online. Now a days many games are subscription based (and maybe a retail cost too!) or pay to play. Both of these models require one thing: For the player to play as long as possible. This leads to developing a game that is addictive. Maybe not actively, by the code developers, but I can see any bean counter foaming at the mouth to add every addictive practice there is. And guess what, most of the time the code developers don't win unless it is going to drastically alter the game.

    This long term playing brings out the worst in people. It makes small character flaws, big ones. And don't say you don't have any character flaws, everyone has them. It is just how you manage them. Long term additive playing brings out the worst in people. It is addiction.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished.
  40. But what about the damage done by parents? by shess · · Score: 1

    They never seem to do studies about how the kids turn out who's parents were control-freaks and used things like "video games are evil" and "D&D is evil" and "pogs are evil" to force their kids into the line the parents want them to adhere to.

    Admittedly, those are just the excuses those parents use, and as a society our approach seems to be "Well, kids are chattel, nothing we can do about it if their parents are horrible."

  41. studies says school shooters played lots of games by peter303 · · Score: 1

    A shooter investigation called the Spiral Notebook said James Holmes and Eric Harris played lots of violent video games.

    But this doesnt imply the reverse. Say half the 20 million males between age are frequent gamers. That would mean only 1 in 100,000 become shooters. In fact gamers could be blamed for every ill in society because it is such a common hobby.

  42. Video games ARE violent! by Kojow777 · · Score: 1

    Ever since playing Super Mario Brothers I've had this insatiable urge to hurl fireballs at my enemies.

  43. Re:Brain damage from video games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then how do you explain the Donald Trump supporters?

  44. Barracidal by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    According to the study, the only long-term effect they could find was a marked increase in violence towards crates and barrels. The store by that name is investigating moving to a strict "you break it, you bought it" policy, as losses mount.

  45. SHOOT EM UPS ARE NOT FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Step 1: Know even a little bit about what you're researching.

    Shoot-em-ups are the likes of Gradius or Asteroids. First-person-shooters are the likes of Doom and Unreal Tournament.

  46. Economic Class? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they take into account economic class? Computers were expensive in the 90s.

  47. The only game banned in our house by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    Carmageddon, inspired by the Deathrace 2000 movie franchise. I told my son it doesn't matter what you do with virtual fists or weapons because some day when you're using real ones you'll be mentally sharp and know the difference. But driving is different, you strive to make the process automatic and subconscious. Steering for pedestrians in a game cannot be a good groundwork for driving, regardless how different the game controller is. He agreed.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  48. moral panic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "moral panic of the past few decades would have you believe"
    Or the moral panic of the last 2 years...

  49. it's different nowadays by RealRaven2000 · · Score: 1

    ... gamers are bad; morally rotten to the core and mysoginistic, all five guys. #GamerGate
    Only feminist approved games are beyond critizism.