Ignornat Anti-Gaming Drivel

edited April 2012 in General Chat
Uh, video-games are bad, m'kay?

It's that time again... around 2pm on a weekday; daytime TV chat shows that disrespect video-games and blame the world's woes on them...

Oh, Alan Titchmarsh. You so crazy.

I know that we're all used to this sort of thing by now but I found the woman in this clip to be particularly egregious. I'd like to slap her but I'm sure that she'd merely blame that behavior on me playing video-games (despite the fact that I don't play violent games), as opposed as a natural reaction to her self-satisfied, ignorant stupidity!

img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=10270926

You can do it. It's all up to you, mmmmm'kay.
With a little plan you can change your life today.♫

♫You don't have to spend your life playing GTA.
Stalking the streets, killing hookers for their pay.♫

♫Follow my plan and very soon you will say, it's easy mmmmm'kay.♫

♫Step 1: Instead of firing a gun, why not bake a cake or knit a sweater, just for the fun.♫

♫Step 2: Instead of shooting some Jew, why not donate to a Hebrew.♫

♫Step 3: With C.O.D. drop the dots because you'll enjoy eating cod lots and lots.♫

♫Step 4: Dont play games any more because games are the worst thing that you can do.

Comments

  • edited April 2012
    For f%$%s sake... sorry, but that's the only thing I can say right now on the matter.
  • edited April 2012
    I find it entertaining that you take this sort of thing seriously.

    Rule #2 - Ignorance breeds idiocy.

    I've learned to tune this sort of thing out by now, and I highly recommend you all do the same if you want to retain some degree of sanity. These people don't know what they're talking about - end of.
  • edited April 2012
    I find it entertaining that you take this sort of thing seriously.

    I don't take it too seriously. I and I'm sure others come across this sort of thing a lot but I just found this particular case (i.e. the woman, Julie Peasgood) to be especially ignorant.

    She's even hypocritical because she provided a voice-over for the PC survival horror game 'Martian Gothic: Unification'. I guess that she doesn't find violence within entertainment to be abhorrent, providing she's getting paid to contribute.

    It was the audience applauding the moron, whilst booing the one person who was educated on the matter that I found to be unbelievably stupid. Then again, Alan Titchmarsh's audience is generally composed of blue-rinsed old ladies, so I guess I shouldn't have been so surprised.
  • edited April 2012
    Rule #2 - Ignorance breeds idiocy.

    What's Rule #1?
  • edited April 2012
    Farlander wrote: »
    What's Rule #1?

    You DO NOT talk about Video Games.
  • edited April 2012
    Farlander wrote: »
    What's Rule #1?
    Everyone is stupid, but some are better at hiding it then others.

    Rule #3 is 'The less you know going in, the more you gain coming out',
    while #4 is 'Respect is Earned, l33ts5p34k is Scorned'.
  • edited April 2012
    What?!?!??!!? Blaming video games?! Where on earth did we get the idea that video games are bad?!?!
  • edited April 2012
    FrankT wrote: »
    What?!?!??!!? Blaming video games?! Where on earth did we get the idea that video games are bad?!?!

    The Daily Mail.
  • edited April 2012
    Also, Jack Thompson.
  • edited April 2012
    Also, Jack Thompson.
    father-Ted_280_422484a.jpg

    "Oh, that gob-shite!"
  • edited April 2012
    I haven't watched the whole thing, but so far, I'm pissed with the guy defending video games. Stop stuttering, you! It makes your arguments seem invalid!
  • edited April 2012
    I haven't watched the whole thing, but so far, I'm pissed with the guy defending video games. Stop stuttering, you! It makes your arguments seem invalid!

    Frankly I'll be shocked if you find that man to be worse than the woman!
  • edited April 2012
    Also, Jack Thompson.

    Oh that guy was a complete idiot.

    He sued Penny Arcade for donating to charity.
  • edited April 2012
    St_Eddie wrote: »
    Frankly I'll be shocked if you find that man to be worse than the woman!

    Well, she was bad, but she was obviously just parroting things she'd heard elsewhere from somebody who had actually witnessed a video game. The guy defending them didn't have very clear arguments and kept stuttering, which made the points he did make seem weak and unsupported, even though they were.

    Basically, in terms of debating, the woman sounded more sure of herself and her facts. Even though they were wrong. Made me upset with the dude, because if he'd been as equally a strong debater the argument might have swung his way more. Since, you know, he had actual facts to back up his claims.
  • edited April 2012
    Farlander wrote: »
    What's Rule #1?

    The Doctor lies.
  • edited April 2012
    Farlander wrote: »
    What's Rule #1?

    RULE #1 - Using an intricate system of mirrors in perfect alignment, in order to peer into the women's showers is NOT permitted.
  • edited April 2012
    RULE #1 - Using an intricate system of mirrors in perfect alignment, in order to peer into the women's showers is NOT permitted.

    By the sound of it you figured it out the hard way :D
  • edited April 2012
    Farlander wrote: »
    By the sound of it you figured it out the hard way :D

    Yep. The women noticed the mirrors and a Benny Hill style chase ensued.
  • edited April 2012
    Yep. The women noticed the mirrors and a Benny Hill style chase ensued.

    It could be worse. It could be Predator-style hunt...
  • edited April 2012
    I'm sorry. You're going to argue that the vast majority of video games don't reward violence? That the vast majority of video games are filled with racism and sexism?

    Because they are.

    Characters named "Coal Train" and girls fighting in thongs is blatant racism and sexism.

    Here, let me point you to people who do science and don't just spout opinions.

    http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx

    Simply because you don't see the results in yourself or others doesn't mean it's not there.
  • edited April 2012
    DAISHI wrote: »
    Here, let me point you to people who do science and don't just spout opinions.

    http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx
    As someone who also does actual science (in the area of cognition, no less), color me thoroughly unconvinced. I don't have time to do a point by point breakdown of the issues I have with that article, but the main issue I have with studies RE: violence in media and video games is this: they are studies which are attempting to *prove* a hypothesis rather than to *test* one. This seems a trivial complaint, but is actually extremely critical when considering the scientific process. It automatically introduces bias into experimental design, encourages the ignoring of potentially significant confounds, and makes for sloppy studies overall.

    Also, in his conclusion he states:
    Several major gaps remain in the violent video game literature. One especially large gap is the lack of longitudinal studies testing the link between habitual violent video game exposure and later aggression, while controlling for earlier levels of aggression and other risk factors.
    Here, he is essentially admitting (in confusing language) that there has never been a study done with a proper control to test the effects of video game violence. Any serious researcher would read this sentence, and immediately laugh off any claims made.

    It's also important to recognize that even the most respected academics are still human, and to be frank many of them are more interested in defending their own theories than seeking the truth (particularly in the social sciences).
  • edited April 2012
    I honestly didn't like the fact that he immediately discounted the "correlation argument". This is a valid argument. We really don't know if violent video games cause violent behavior, or if the subjects who expressed violent behavior after playing a violent game were drawn to that game because they were naturally violent. To just say that this doesn't matter or shouldn't be tested seems rather silly. Is this article, by chance, peer-reviewed?
  • edited April 2012
    DAISHI wrote: »
    I'm sorry. You're going to argue that the vast majority of video games don't reward violence? That the vast majority of video games are filled with racism and sexism?

    Because they are.

    Characters named "Coal Train" and girls fighting in thongs is blatant racism and sexism.

    Here, let me point you to people who do science and don't just spout opinions.

    http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx

    Simply because you don't see the results in yourself or others doesn't mean it's not there.

    Yes, there are violent video-games, what's your point? Would you rather that we ban violent games altogether? That's called censorship and makes for a molly-cuddling society. No thanks, I'd prefer to choose what I deem myself capable of playing.

    Why should video-games be any different to other forms of media such as film? It's the parents responsibility to know what games their children are playing, that's why we have a legally enforced age rating. Children shouldn't be playing adult rated games but if they are then I'd suggest that the real harm will come from their negligent parents, not a piece of entertainment.

    If you're a parent, then it's your responsibility to know what activities your children are partaking in and to ensure that you do not allow them to play or watch inappropriate material. It's all to easy for crappy parents to place their child's bad behavior on video-games. After-all, a scapegoat means that they don't have to face up to their own failings.

    Rock & Roll, film and video-games - throughout history there have been scapegoats. It's nothing new but to try and defend that ignorant lunacy? Give me a break!
  • edited April 2012
    ... To just say that this doesn't matter or shouldn't be tested seems rather silly. Is this article, by chance, peer-reviewed?
    Considering it is published in a very minor journal, and is extremely sparsely sourced (mainly the author's own work), I would guess "No".
  • edited April 2012
    KuroShiro wrote: »
    Considering it is published in a very minor journal, and is extremely sparsely sourced (mainly the author's own work), I would guess "No".

    Yeah, if it isn't peer-reviewed, then it's only one step up from a blog post as far as the scientific community is concerned.

    And Davies, I agree that parents should take a more active role in monitoring and understanding what their children are absorbing. Or at least not complaining because they bought their kid violent video game and then were shocked to discover that it has *gasp* violence in it. What did these parents think they were buying when they got a copy of Modern Warfare for their thirteen year old? These guns don't shoot flowers, you know.
  • edited April 2012
    St_Eddie wrote: »
    Yes, there are violent video-games, what's your point? Would you rather that we ban violent games altogether? That's called censorship and makes for a molly-cuddling society. No thanks, I'd prefer to choose what I deem myself capable of playing.

    Why should video-games be any different to other forms of media such as film? It's the parents responsibility to know what games their children are playing, that's why we have a legally enforced age rating. Children shouldn't be playing adult rated games but if they are then I'd suggest that the real harm will come from their negligent parents, not a piece of entertainment.

    If you're a parent, then it's your responsibility to know what activities your children are partaking in and to ensure that you do not allow them to play or watch inappropriate material. It's all to easy for crappy parents to place their child's bad behavior on video-games. After-all, a scapegoat means that they don't have to face up to their own failings.

    Rock & Roll, film and video-games - throughout history there have been scapegoats. It's nothing new but to try and defend that ignorant lunacy? Give me a break!

    I think it's silly to act as if we're walking blank slates that deflect at will all external influences. Or more to my actual point, video gamers get in a rage about people criticizing their medium, and do nothing to justify their perspectives when you take an actual look at how they respond (see: all youtube comments). There are valid points being made by psychologists and even Penny Arcade doesn't seem to have the ability to step back from their own vested interests to asses those points. Of course games don't create violent people, but they have influence on how predisposed violent individuals exhibit their anger, and those games can have special influence in the period after playing. So what happens to extended periods of deep investment in these sort of games? It's not a passive experience like movie watching, it actually requires the player to engage with physical feedback and encourages not just violence but also death. I think those are properties quite unique to games as opposed to films.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.