Violent Video Games Alter Brain Function in Young Men

[The Vegan Marxist]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2011/11/111130095251-large.jpg
Functional magnetic resonance images of the two groups of study participants. (Credit: Indiana University School of Medicine)

Violent Video Games Alter Brain Function in Young Men

ScienceDaily (Nov. 30, 2011) — Sustained changes in the region of the brain associated with cognitive function and emotional control were found in young adult men after one week of playing violent video games, according to study results presented by Indiana University School of Medicine (http://communications.medicine.iu.edu/newsroom/stories/2011/violent-video-games-alter-brain-function-in-young-men/) researchers at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

This is the first time the IU researchers, who have studied the effects of media violence for more than a decade, have conducted an experimental study that showed a direct relationship between playing violent video games over an extended period of time and a subsequent change in brain regions associated with cognitive function and emotional control.

The controversy over whether or not violent video games are potentially harmful to players has been debated for many years, even making it as far as the Supreme Court in 2010. There has been little scientific evidence demonstrating that the games have a prolonged negative neurological effect.

"For the first time, we have found that a sample of randomly assigned young adults showed less activation in certain frontal brain regions following a week of playing violent video games at home," said Yang Wang, M.D., assistant research professor in the IU Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences. "The affected brain regions are important for controlling emotion and aggressive behavior."

For the study, 28 healthy adult males, age 18 to 29, with low past exposure to violent video games were randomly assigned to two groups of 14. Members of the first group were instructed to play a shooting video game for 10 hours at home for one week and refrain from playing the following week. The second group did not play a video game at all during the two-week period.

Each of the 28 men underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) analysis at the beginning of the study, with follow-up exams at one and two weeks. During fMRI, the participants completed an emotional interference task, pressing buttons according to the color of visually presented words. Words indicating violent actions were interspersed among nonviolent action words. In addition, the participants completed a cognitive inhibition counting task.

The results showed that after one week of violent game play, the video game group members showed less activation in the left inferior frontal lobe during the emotional Stroop task and less activation in the anterior cingulate cortex during the counting Stroop task, compared to their baseline results and the results of the control group after one week. After the video game group refrained from game play for an additional week, the changes to the executive regions of the brain returned closer to the control group. Stroop task tests an individual's ability to control cognitive flexibility and attention.

"These findings indicate that violent video game play has a long-term effect on brain functioning," Dr. Wang said. "These effects may translate into behavioral changes over longer periods of game play."

Dr. Wang said that another important point of the study was that the young men were supplied with laptop computers and played at home in their "natural environment." Some of the previous research was done with players participating in a lab setting.

Coauthors are Tom Hummer, Ph.D., IU assistant research professor of psychiatry; William Kronenberger, Ph.D., associate professor of clinical psychology in the IU Department of Psychiatry; Kristine Mosier, D.M.D., Ph.D., IU associate professor of radiology; and Vincent P. Mathews, M.D., IU professor of neuroradiology. Drs. Wang, Hummer and Mosier are members of the IU Center for Neuroimaging.

The research is supported by the Center for Successful Parenting.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111130095251.htm

[∞]

I still really don't care. Violent games are still the most fun to play.

[GPDP]

So what conclusion should we draw from this? Surely not censorship, right?

[The Insurrection]

I still really don't care. Violent games are still the most fun to play.

Odd.

[The Insurrection]

So what conclusion should we draw from this? Surely not censorship, right?

No, it requires some level of self-control. Something that most people find incredibly difficult to master.

[Commissar Rykov]

Lets see them say that to my face when I smash them in the kisser with a barbell and steal their car to run over schoolchildren with.

[IndependentCitizen]

I play arma2, often playing as insurgents ambushing, IEDing and ting.

I am not going to go outside and perpetrate those attacks.

[xub3rn00dlex]

Lets see them say that to my face when I smash them in the kisser with a barbell and steal their car to run over schoolchildren with.

With 12 kidnapped puppies locked in the trunk shooting rocket launchers with hellfire missles stolen from the local base at working class families.

What's next? Adventure games are leading people totheir deaths because we're leaping Accross buildings trying to find treasure?

[The Insurrection]

What's next? Adventure games are leading people totheir deaths because we're leaping Accross buildings trying to find treasure?

Do you deny that the concluding evidence of that study is real?

[Commissar Rykov]

http://www.sosparents.org/

From the people who helped support this wonderful "research" yeah they surely don't have an agenda of any kind.:rolleyes: Lets be real here these idiots don't want to address the real problems of why kids commit violent acts and it has fuck all to do with goddamn video games. These people want to bury their heads in the sand and do what Christians did in the Middle Ages and find a demon to blame all bad behavior on or witches, cripples, black cats, old people, gingers, etc. What they don't want to admit is the reason kids are fucked up is because of the society they are raised in which literally promotes climbing overtop of people and not viewing them as human beings but obstacles. What they don't want to admit is their shitty parenting is just as much to blame as is the society that promotes these behaviors. You want a culprit for violence? Look no further then outside of your computer or tv screen.

[xub3rn00dlex]

Do you deny that the concluding evidence of that study is real?

Sure the study shows real evidence, but it is inconclusive. Games differ in amounts of violence as well as types of violence. It's another bullshit study done to give ammo to those who wish to stifle and censor creativity of game developers. Ie: god of war 3 violence =\= lego star wars violence.

[The Insurrection]

http://www.sosparents.org/

From the people who helped support this wonderful "research" yeah they surely don't have an agenda of any kind.:rolleyes: Lets be real here these idiots don't want to address the real problems of why kids commit violent acts and it has fuck all to do with goddamn video games. These people want to bury their heads in the sand and do what Christians did in the Middle Ages and find a demon to blame all bad behavior on or witches, cripples, black cats, old people, gingers, etc. What they don't want to admit is the reason kids are fucked up is because of the society they are raised in which literally promotes climbing overtop of people and not viewing them as human beings but obstacles. What they don't want to admit is their shitty parenting is just as much to blame as is the society that promotes these behaviors. You want a culprit for violence? Look no further then outside of your computer or tv screen.

What are you talking about? That study said nothing about making young people violet. It simply demonstrated that prolonged use of violent video games alters brain functions.

Your reaction is quite telling though. Instead of actually reading the study you just automatically assume a base response to violent video games criticism. The question of whether video games make people violent is not answered by that study, but what is clear is that it changes functions in the brain.

Whether they have an agenda or not, unless they lied about their study, what are you arguing against? Other than the phantom criticism you've created?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So what conclusion should we draw from this? Surely not censorship, right?

That's what I'm wondering. The key appears to be here:


The results showed that after one week of violent game play, the video game group members showed less activation in the left inferior frontal lobe during the emotional Stroop task and less activation in the anterior cingulate cortex during the counting Stroop task, compared to their baseline results and the results of the control group after one week. After the video game group refrained from game play for an additional week, the changes to the executive regions of the brain returned closer to the control group. Stroop task tests an individual's ability to control cognitive flexibility and attention.

It really depends what the implications of "less activation in the left inferior frontal lobe" are.

However, since the research was supported (i.e. funded I reckon) by the Center for Successful Parenting (http://www.sosparents.org/), their Mission Statement (http://www.sosparents.org/Mission%20Statement.html) doesn't exactly inspire confidence:


Our fulture used to protect the innocence of our children. Today our children are constantly exposed to sex and violence. Our vision is to move parents, leaders in health, government, business, education, public safety and other vocations to action by changing our culture to protect children from unhealthy media in all formats.

Colour me skeptical, because this sounds like yet another lobby group specialising in media-based moral panics.

[Commissar Rykov]

What are you talking about? That study said nothing about making young people violet. It simply demonstrated that prolonged use of violent video games alters brain functions.

Your reaction is quite telling though. Instead of actually reading the study you just automatically assume a base response to violent video games criticism. The question of whether video games make people violent is not answered by that study, but what is clear is that it changes functions in the brain.

Whether they have an agenda or not, unless they lied about their study, what are you arguing against? Other than the phantom criticism you've created?
Did you even read the link I provided from the people who supported this study and what they are spinning it as? It is nothing more than a propaganda coup for the Right Wing Religious Nutfucks. That you refuse to realize that is hilarious though.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What are you talking about? That study said nothing about making young people violet. It simply demonstrated that prolonged use of violent video games alters brain functions.

Your reaction is quite telling though. Instead of actually reading the study you just automatically assume a base response to violent video games criticism. The question of whether video games make people violent is not answered by that study, but what is clear is that it changes functions in the brain.

But that's a meaningless statement, because the brain changes all the time. It's quite obvious that this lobby group is simply fishing for stuff they can cherry-pick in order to support their moralising agenda.

[The Insurrection]

Sure the study shows real evidence, but it is inconclusive. Games differ in amounts of violence as well as types of violence. It's another bullshit study done to give ammo to those who wish to stifle and censor creativity of game developers. Ie: god of war 3 violence =\= lego star wars violence.

Whether the study is conclusive or not, it demonstrates that violent video games alter brain functions. Why is that not a concern? I am not one of those people who want to "censor creativity of game developers", but I do think it's wise to pay attention to things that damage or alter peoples brains.

The reactions in this thread are just as myopic as the view that video games cause violence. Instead of taking binary positions, perhaps it would be wiser to acknowledge there is merit in both sides of the argument.

[The Insurrection]

Did you even read the link I provided from the people who supported this study and what they are spinning it as? It is nothing more than a propaganda coup for the Right Wing Religious Nutfucks. That you refuse to realize that is hilarious though.

But I'm not denying they have an agenda...

[xub3rn00dlex]

What are you talking about? That study said nothing about making young people violet. It simply demonstrated that prolonged use of violent video games alters brain functions.

Your reaction is quite telling though. Instead of actually reading the study you just automatically assume a base response to violent video games criticism. The question of whether video games make people violent is not answered by that study, but what is clear is that it changes functions in the brain.

Whether they have an agenda or not, unless they lied about their study, what are you arguing against? Other than the phantom criticism you've created?

The study is not " do video games alter brain behavior " but rather do " violent video games alter brain behavior." which says fuck all about anything really since exposure to violence in news would also do that, as would witnessing domestic violence, bullying. Etc. this study isn't done in a way to portray violence being damaging on brain function, but rather that violent videogaming specifically does that.

[RedGrunt]

Of course playing violent video games and seeing violence "de-sensitizes" people. That should be fucking obvious, we react and learn from our environment. If something is common, we accept it as normal. I think it is rather excessive, in fact I remember the scene from Black Ops(which, btw, screamed MK-Ultra and similar programs) where you punch someone in the face whom has shards of glass in his mouth. Yeah, that was fucking excessive. I have more problems with how this links up with propaganda though, as most of the fps video games have the same enemies or depict common, real life, enemies of US/NATO in these. They're training violent and patriotic soldiers to use. At least World at War had substance and history.

[The Insurrection]

But that's a meaningless statement, because the brain changes all the time. It's quite obvious that this lobby group is simply fishing for stuff they can cherry-pick in order to support their moralising agenda.


"These findings indicate that violent video game play has a long-term effect on brain functioning," Dr. Wang said. "These effects may translate into behavioral changes over longer periods of game play."

That's pretty clear. Whatever their agenda, I think it's necessary to consider the science. Rather than just have a knee-jerk reaction and dismiss it. That's just as narrow-minded as the "moralisers".

[The Insurrection]

The study is not " do video games alter brain behavior " but rather do " violent video games alter brain behavior." which says fuck all about anything really since exposure to violence in news would also do that, as would witnessing domestic violence, bullying. Etc. this study isn't done in a way to portray violence being damaging on brain function, but rather that violent videogaming specifically does that.

I don't understand how that negates what I've said...The study demonstrates how violent video games could have long term affects on behaviour. Whether there is an agenda or not, that's something that should be considered and concerned about. I don't understand what's contentious about that?

[Commissar Rykov]

That's pretty clear. Whatever their agenda, I think it's necessary to consider the science. Rather than just have a knee-jerk reaction and dismiss it. That's just as narrow-minded as the "moralisers".
This isn't science this is lobby group bullshit with cherry picked data. It is a giant leap in correlation = causation. Nothing in this data shows anything other than brain activity changes while playing video games which as was already pointed out doesn't tell us shit.

[∞]

That's pretty clear. Whatever their agenda, I think it's necessary to consider the science. Rather than just have a knee-jerk reaction and dismiss it. That's just as narrow-minded as the "moralisers".

I agree. Obviously MRI scans of brain activity mean something. Although they should consider the personalities and the cognitive development of the subjects.

Still don't care though.

[The Insurrection]

This isn't science this is lobby group bullshit with cherry picked data. It is a giant leap in correlation = causation. Nothing in this data shows anything other than brain activity changes while playing video games which as was already pointed out doesn't tell us shit.

Unless you are saying he is a liar the statement the academic gave is pretty clear:


"These findings indicate that violent video game play has a long-term effect on brain functioning," Dr. Wang said. "These effects may translate into behavioral changes over longer periods of game play."Now, of course, that's not conclusive, but it's a point of interest that should be considered. It's all fine and well saying "oh they have an agenda" etc etc, but since the science might suggest that you are wrong, why not accept that this might be the case?

Are you really that arrogant to assert unequivocally that violent video games have absolutely no impact on cognitive and emotional behaviour? That study clearly demonstrates that it does, so I don't know what you're arguing about...

[Commissar Rykov]

Unless you are saying he is a liar the statement the academic gave is pretty clear:



Now, of course, that's not conclusive, but it's a point of interest that should be considered. It's all fine and well saying "oh they have an agenda" etc etc, but since the science might suggest that you are wrong, why not accept that this might be the case?

Are you really that arrogant to assert unequivocally that violent video games have absolutely no impact on cognitive and emotional behaviour?
All Peer Reviewed studies have shown inconclusive behavior and this is beside the point there is real life violence going on so who really gives two shits about some pixels massacring each other? I mean seriously I guess if one is a moralist dipshit that is more worried about controlling their children like a Prison Warden then sure. I find it more amusing society wastes its time with nonsense like this when we have young kids dying in Barrios all over the World. Yet that would require some real application of fixing problems and suggesting changes that would irk that current Status Quo. Color me unamused by this waste of time and resources.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Not really much of news since brain activity begins to change during any activity.This is true off of violence,depression,religion,etc.

An excuse for censorship,nothing more;the group which funded this research strikes me of a right-wing think-tank dedicated to the abolishment of anything youth oriented.In other words,ignore and counter as usual.

[xub3rn00dlex]

I don't understand how that negates what I've said...The study demonstrates how violent video games could have long term affects on behaviour. Whether there is an agenda or not, that's something that should be considered and concerned about. I don't understand what's contentious about that?

I'm not trying to come off as a dick. I'm a little ticked off because of a paper i didn't know was due today now probably causing me to fail a class ( reaction has nothing to do with violent games, i swear! So i apologize is my responses are bitter )

MRI scans showing activity are important, but several other activities also show responses in brain activity. What this study doesn't show which imo is more important is what this means other than our brains reacting. For example when i blast someone's head off in BF3 or rip a god in half, that's cool and fun. But when i see police assaulting workers and protestors, it's not fun. That witnessing turns me violent, which i think this study does nothing to show. I would be interested if they compared violence against workers vs. videogame violence.

[The Insurrection]

Not really much of news since brain activity begins to change during any activity.This is true off of violence,depression,religion,etc.

An excuse for censorship,nothing more;the group which funded this research strikes me of a right-wing think-tank dedicated to the abolishment of anything youth oriented.In other words,ignore and counter as usual.

Dude. We've been over this. It doesn't just say that it changes brain activity, it says that it changes cognitive and emotional behaviour.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Dude. We've been over this. It doesn't just say that it changes brain activity, it says that it changes cognitive and emotional behaviour.

...and?

[The Insurrection]

All Peer Reviewed studies have shown inconclusive behavior and this is beside the point there is real life violence going on so who really gives two shits about some pixels massacring each other? I mean seriously I guess if one is a moralist dipshit that is more worried about controlling their children like a Prison Warden then sure. I find it more amusing society wastes its time with nonsense like this when we have young kids dying in Barrios all over the World. Yet that would require some real application of fixing problems and suggesting changes that would irk that current Status Quo. Color me unamused by this waste of time and resources.

Putting your appeal to emotion to one side, the reality is that this isn't a binary situation. It's not "deal with violent videogames" or "deal with a violent society"...We have the ability to deal with both. Indeed, they're all part of the same problem.

The point is not whether this is a waste of time, the point is how we respond to violence, whether it's economic, political or cultural. And right now we're talking about violence in culture. So trying to compare all of these things is disingenuous.

[Commissar Rykov]

Dude. We've been over this. It doesn't just say that it changes brain activity, it says that it changes cognitive and emotional behaviour.
No what is literally says is it might. It isn't even conclusive in that the only people saying it is changing things are the people who paid for the study.

[The Insurrection]

...and?

And what? The premise of your point was wrong...

[TheGodlessUtopian]

And what? The premise of your point was wrong...

As Commissar Rykov pointed out,it wasn't.

[The Insurrection]

I'm not trying to come off as a dick. I'm a little ticked off because of a paper i didn't know was due today now probably causing me to fail a class ( reaction has nothing to do with violent games, i swear! So i apologize is my responses are bitter )

That sucks :(


MRI scans showing activity are important, but several other activities also show responses in brain activity. What this study doesn't show which imo is more important is what this means other than our brains reacting. For example when i blast someone's head off in BF3 or rip a god in half, that's cool and fun. But when i see police assaulting workers and protestors, it's not fun. That witnessing turns me violent, which i think this study does nothing to show. I would be interested if they compared violence against workers vs. videogame violence.Yes, I agree it's inconclusive and it may turn out to show nothing of significance, but equally it shouldn't be dismissed as merely some kind of agenda motivated ploy (although that might be the case as are as they are concerned). They may have a point and until further studies are made, we can't conclusively reject their hypothesis.

[The Insurrection]

No what is literally says is it might. It isn't even conclusive in that the only people saying it is changing things are the people who paid for the study.

No, you're right. It is inconclusive. Inconclusive is not the same as wrong.

[Commissar Rykov]

No, you're right. It is inconclusive. Inconclusive is not the same as wrong.
No one has said that but you the same person who hasn't read the links posted by others showing that a Right Wing Thinktank is using this to make culture more conservative and reactionary.

[The Insurrection]

As Commissar Rykov pointed out,it wasn't.

You seem to be confused. Your argument was that it says it changes brain activity which everyone agrees is a misnomer, since as you point out that happens all the time. That point, which you made is not remotely the same as the one Rykov was making, which is precisely why I point it out to you...

[The Insurrection]

No one has said that but you the same person who hasn't read the links posted by others showing that a Right Wing Thinktank is using this to make culture more conservative.

You are attempting to reject their evidence based on their moral views. In debate that's a logically fallacy. Whether they are right wing or not, which I don't disagree with, hence why I haven't read the link (since I agree with you - I don't disbelieve the contents of the link), doesn't make their evidence less valid.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You are attempting to reject their evidence based on their moral views. In debate that's a logically fallacy. Whether they are right wing or not, which I don't disagree with hence why I haven't read the link (since I agree with you - ergo I don't disbelieve the content of the link), doesn't make their evidence less valid.

My Havard educated psychology teacher would disagree with you.As she said,"...we live in a capitalist society and you better bet that whoever is funding the research has an agenda..." aye,when this is proven as definitive and not just changing brain waves I will have something else to say.

[xub3rn00dlex]

That sucks :( Yup. Might have to go all Kratos now and shit.



Yes, I agree it's inconclusive and it may turn out to show nothing of significance, but equally it shouldn't be dismissed as merely some kind of agenda motivated ploy (although that might be the case as are as they are concerned). They may have a point and until further studies are made, we can't conclusively reject their hypothesis.

What we have to do is find a middle ground in that case, since we can't dismiss the finding and what it describes, but we can't also say there wasn't an agenda and bias in conducting the survey. Further testing has to be done, and there has to be the ability to repeat the survey. There are one too many variables for one survey to have a meaning, but it would be interesting to see what future tests reveal. The problem is that is not the point these supporters are trying to make, it never is. It's never " Violent games might alter behavior," but rather it's "Look! Science found this! BAN BAN BAN! All games now!"

There is also the case of what constitutes a game as violent. Pacman could be considered violent.

[The Insurrection]

My Havard educated psychology teacher would disagree with you.As she said,"...we live in a capitalist society and you better bet that whoever is funding the research has an agenda..." aye,when this is proven as definitive and not just changing brain waves I will have something else to say.

It's spelled Harvard and she sounds like a moron.

[Desperado]

Whether the study is conclusive or not, it demonstrates that violent video games alter brain functions.


And? I'd be suprised if it didn't! Plenty of tasks "alter brain functions". This tells us nothing unless it can be clearly associated with change in behaviour. The fact is it can't. The study was done by such a biased source and carefully written (why else does the study only focus on "young men"?) to pander to parents' hysterical fear. And sadly, induction gives me massive scepticism towards science that's not in a respectable journal, and with brain studies this is only more the case.

The simple ridiculousness of the whole hysterical media argument is pretty clear anyway. We do know that weight lifting (and then drugs that increase testosterone levels) massively increase aggressive behaviour. Comically, the media instead turns to scourn video gamers, traditionally stereotyped as skinny and unfit. Besides all this, computer gaming (and "violent" computer gaming) is more popular than ever before, and yet violent crime at its lowest levels (for the UK anyway). Japan, with all it's gaming, has lower crime than most of the developed world. On other fronts (that gaming reduces concentration etc.), it's again unproven, and general trends (such as the Flynn effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)) seem to say otherwise. The fact that gaming avoids the outright propaganda and persistent advertising that television puts out means that as leftists it really shouldn't be a concern.

As socialists we should understand why the conservative media perpetrates yet another fear of "violence" in young men - just as it manufactures fear of violent blacks, poor, Muslims... (whilst ignoring all the state brutality at home and abroad).

[The Insurrection]

What we have to do is find a middle ground in that case, since we can't dismiss the finding and what it describes, but we can't also say there wasn't an agenda and bias in conducting the survey. Further testing has to be done, and there has to be the ability to repeat the survey. There are one too many variables for one survey to have a meaning, but it would be interesting to see what future tests reveal. The problem is that is not the point these supporters are trying to make, it never is. It's never " Violent games might alter behavior," but rather it's "Look! Science found this! BAN BAN BAN! All games now!"

In terms of the science, whether there was an agenda is fundamentally irrelevant. Of course, attack their agenda as being morally unsound etc etc, but to connect that to the science is a dangerous precedent. If it transpires that they are right, the choice for society then is not to ban those games, but to moderate their usage. If it turned out that my child's emotional and cognitive functions were being damaged as a result of playing those games, surely I have a duty as a parent to take steps to prevent that?

Society resisted the science which demonstrated cigarettes to damage the lungs. It would be foolish to do the same in regards to violent video games. Of course, equally if they are wrong, then everyone should continue shooting and bludgeoning to their hearts content :)

[The Insurrection]

And? I'd be suprised if it didn't! Plenty of tasks "alter brain functions". This tells us nothing unless it can be clearly associated with change in behaviour. The fact is it can't. The study was done by such a biased source and carefully written (why else does the study only focus on "young men"?) to pander to parents' hysterical fear. And sadly, induction gives me massive scepticism towards science that's not in a respectable journal, and with brain studies this is only more the case.

The simple ridiculousness of the whole hysterical media argument is pretty clear anyway. We do know that weight lifting (and then drugs that increase testosterone levels) massively increase aggressive behaviour. Comically, the media instead turns to scourn video gamers, traditionally stereotyped as skinny and unfit. Besides all this, computer gaming (and "violent" computer gaming) is more popular than ever before, and yet violent crime at its lowest levels (for the UK anyway). Japan, with all it's gaming, has lower crime than most of the developed world. On other fronts (that gaming reduces concentration etc.), it's again unproven, and general trends (such as the Flynn effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)) seem to say otherwise. The fact that gaming avoids the outright propaganda and persistent advertising that television puts out means that as leftists gaming really shouldn't be a concern.

As socialists we should understand why the conservative media perpetrates yet another fear of "violence" in young men - just as it manufactures fear of violent blacks, poor, Muslims... (whilst ignoring all the state brutality at home and abroad).

Look, as I've said, I'm not interested in their argument. I'm not convinced by it nor do I think it has a place in this debate. I am simply interested in the science and take a completely open mind to it. I think other people should do the same.

[Desperado]

Look, as I've said, I'm not interested in their argument. I'm not convinced by it nor do I think it has a place in this debate. I am simply interested in the science and take a completely open mind to it. I think other people should do the same.

Fair enough. But it's pretty uninteresting science. If you made a group of previously ungardening young men garden (or knit, or ride a horse) for ten hours a week you'd see a change in brain scans. It's nothing if we can't draw hard conclusions on how this affects behaviour (and to what degree). If then, unless it's in a journal we must remain sceptical. And their argument is a tad relevant when considering the source.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It's spelled Harvard and she sounds like a moron.

Typo.... and I would like to see you teach transition students what psychology is.How is she a moron? For giving an example? I have a feeling she is intellectually superior towards you if you immediately sink so as far as to attack someone you have never met.

[The Insurrection]

To Desperado, also, the fact that there is no link between the rise in violent video games enjoyment and violent crimes doesn't mean that peoples cognitive and emotional functions aren't being damaged. It might transpire that other things are being caused rather than just making people violent. We don't know what these games do. That's the point.

[The Insurrection]

Fair enough. But it's pretty uninteresting science. If you made a group of previously ungardening young men garden (or knit, or ride a horse) for ten hours a week you'd see a change in brain scans. It's nothing if we can't draw hard conclusions on how this affects behaviour (and to what degree). And unless it's in a journal, we must remain sceptical. And their arguments are a tad relevant when considering the source.

It's not uninteresting to parents whose children play these games on a daily basis. Ultimately if people want to smoke they smoke. If people want to damage their brains playing games then they can. But if these problems affect society, then society has a responsibility to act, just parents have a responsibility to protect their children's health. I think that's very important science.

[xub3rn00dlex]

In terms of the science, whether there was an agenda is fundamentally irrelevant. Of course, attack their agenda as being morally unsound etc etc, but to connect that to the science is a dangerous precedent. If it transpires that they are right, the choice for society then is not to ban those games, but to moderate their usage. If it turned out that my child's emotional and cognitive functions were being damaged as a result of playing those games, surely I have a duty as a parent to take steps to prevent that?

Society resisted the science which demonstrated cigarettes to damage the lungs. It would be foolish to do the same in regards to violent video games. Of course, equally if they are wrong, then everyone should continue shooting and bludgeoning to their hearts content :)

To suggest that funding sources and their agendas have no effect on how science is conducted is preposterous.

[The Insurrection]

To suggest that funding sources and their agendas have no effect on how science is conducted is preposterous.

Lucky that's not what happened then.

[Kamos]

So, what did this test produce again? That people who hear a lot of violent words will not react to them with as much emotion after a while? Woohoo, what a finding! In other fresh news, America has been discovered!

[The Insurrection]

On the subject of agendas, I wonder how many of you all play and love to play violent video games...

[TheGodlessUtopian]

On the subject of agendas, I wonder how many of you all play and love to play violent video games...

I played many when I was little.

Why you ask?

[The Insurrection]

Well, I ask because clearly people who love to play video games also have an agenda. It's all fine identifying the agenda of these right-wing moralists, but it would be hypocritical not to admit that there was a contrary agenda coming from those who love violent video games.

[Kamos]

Well, I ask because clearly people who love to play video games also have an agenda. It's all fine identifying the agenda of these right-wing moralists, but it would be hypocritical not to admit that there was a contrary agenda coming from those who love violent video games.

Yes, it makes sense. Gays have an agenda too, as we all know.:rolleyes:

[Desperado]

It's not uninteresting to parents whose children play these games on a daily basis.

Only if they have no common sense and are fooled by the biased suggestions of the article. It is uninteresting, because it means nothing. There's no proven association with a change in behaviour. And as said, plenty of other non-emotionally charged tasks would change brain scans if they were done for ten hours a week. But they don't fit into an unscientific hysterical media story of course.


Ultimately if people want to smoke they smoke.Smoking: the area into which so many millions of scientific research on mass samples proved beyond doubt that it is detrimental to health.

This: an unjournalled study using 28 adults pointing out the (blatantly common commonsensical) fact that a task like gaming will stimulate and quieten activity in different areas of the brain, without any connection to changed behaviour or health detriment.

Comparison: :laugh:


If people want to damage their brains playing games then they can.Please point out the study that proves gaming damages brains, because I can't find it in this thread.


But if these problems affect society, then society has a responsibility to act, just parents have a responsibility to protect their children's health.Of course.


I think that's very important science.Science that properly examines such problems are. Studies that point out what anybody would expect, without any meaningful information on the affect of such an activity, aren't. And people that assume it's a problem without evidence are unscientific.

[Art Vandelay]

Is it just me, and I could be wrong because I do not know much about psychology or science for that matter, but does this study not just confirm classical conditioning? Old Pavlov proved that a long time ago. Of course the brain would begin to react differently after repeated exposure to well, just about anything.

[The Insurrection]

Yes, it makes sense. Gays have an agenda too, as we all know.:rolleyes:

That's a ridiculous thing to say on many levels. But I don't understand why the hate of violent video games is a nefarious agenda, but the love of video games isn't an agenda at all?

It's called hypocrisy. You need to be careful not to fall into that trap.

[Revy]

What games AREN'T violent? Even Super Mario and Zelda are "violent" games. People who crusade against violent video games are just looking for a scapegoat for problems which have nothing to do with video games.

[Kamos]

That's a ridiculous thing to say on many levels.

Nope - it's an analogy, and a fitting one at that, I'd say.


But I don't understand why the hate of violent video games is a nefarious agenda, but the love of video games isn't an agenda at all?

Because video gamers (gays) just want to do their own thing while republicans (republicans) want to ban it. It's very different, actually, and quite simple.

[The Insurrection]

Only if they have no common sense and are fooled by the biased suggestions of the article.

I don't understand what the point is you're making. Are you trying to say that the findings in this article should be rejected and that violent video games are not damaging at all on any level?

I think I've been pretty clear in making my point, which is that this whole debate about whether violent video games have adverse affects on emotion and cognition are inconclusive and that it should be a point of interest to determine its conclusively.

If you accept that this isn't conclusive and this possibility exists, then I think you should cease the condescension, because we're making the same point.


It is uninteresting, because it means nothing. There's no proven association with a change in behaviour.Neither is there proof that there isn't...


And as said, plenty of other non-emotionally charged tasks would change brain scans if they were done for ten hours a week. But they don't fit into an unscientific hysterical media story of course.So we should reject this study in its entirety, is that what you're saying? I don't understand the relevancy this has to the point I made...


Smoking: the area into which so many millions of scientific research on mass samples proved beyond doubt that it is detrimental to health.

This: an unjournalled study using 28 adults pointing out the (blatantly common commonsensical) fact that a task like gaming will stimulate and quieten activity in different areas of the brain, without any connection to changed behaviour or health detriment.

Comparison: :laugh:Demonstrating that there is more proven studies on the damage of smoking cigarettes doesn't negate the need to investigate further how violent video games affect peoples brain function...If anything it demonstrates that we clearly need to.


Please point out the study that proves gaming damages brains, because I can't find it in this thread.There isn't one...


Science that properly examines such problems are. Studies that point out what anybody would expect, without any meaningful information on the affect of such an activity, aren't. And people that assume it's a problem without evidence are unscientific.I suggest you re-read my post because you've failed miserably in taking away its meaning. I've not made any definitive statement about violent video games or said that it's a problem or that there is evidence to support such an assertion...

[RedGrunt]

Nope - it's an analogy, and a fitting one at that, I'd say.



Because video gamers (gays) just want to do their own thing while republicans (republicans) want to ban it. It's very different, actually, and quite simple.


Yes, because clearly gamers can't go without playing games. It is so fundamental to their person. We must all thank you for that wonderful analogy, wherein the sole purpose was to subtly imply that he is a reactionary. :thumbup1:

[The Insurrection]

Nope - it's an analogy, and a fitting one at that, I'd say.

No, it's ridiculous and offensive.


Because video gamers (gays) just want to do their own thing while republicans (republicans) want to ban it. It's very different, actually, and quite simple.

:blink:

I think it's ridiculous that you're comparing playing video games with being gay. And in case, I think people here who are defending their love of video games and rejecting the notion that it might be a problem are clearly doing so from an agenda. There's no way you can dispute that. Of course they have an agenda.

[L.A.P.]

Whether the study is conclusive or not, it demonstrates that violent video games alter brain functions

but literally everything alters your brain to some extent, changing the direction you look alters your brain.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Did this study actually find a change in behaviour? If not, what interest does this have beyond the academic?

[The Vegan Marxist]

but literally everything alters your brain to some extent, changing the direction you look alters your brain.

Exactly. And video games mustn't be excluded from this. I'm a video gamer. I love violent video games. The point here is that, with scientific results in which tells us what is being altered, we then have a basic understanding of how to address this potential problem - if a problem is present at all, that is. Yes, it's being supported by the Center for Successful Parenting, but do we really know if they gave direct funds into the research. And even then, why does that then definitively mean that the scientific research was being co-opted by a personal agenda? Do we have any evidence of this? No, we don't.

There's various claims of these various scientists - scientists which make up of Tom Hummer, Ph.D., IU assistant research professor of psychiatry; William Kronenberger, Ph.D., associate professor of clinical psychology in the IU Department of Psychiatry; Kristine Mosier, D.M.D., Ph.D., IU associate professor of radiology; and Vincent P. Mathews, M.D., IU professor of neuroradiology - "cherry picking" data, and yet I see no evidence to these claims either.

[brigadista]

how did this study prove violent games change brain activity?

was there a comparator ? for example a control group watching non violent games for 10 hours?

how do they know it was violent computer games that changed the brain activity and not simply watching any thing with flashing images for 10 hours that would change brain activity -i don't see how they can justify their findings without a comparator.....:(

also why just test men?

[phyrrus9]

I side with those who just don't care ... a game is a game ... its JUST a game, people know the difference between a computer variable and you or me, they just choose to kill and blame games to get away with it

[Hexen]

I smell pseudoscience with a agenda behind it.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Did this study actually find a change in behaviour? If not, what interest does this have beyond the academic?

This is what the article states:


“For the first time, we have found that a sample of randomly assigned young adults showed less activation in certain frontal brain regions following a week of playing violent video games at home,” said Yang Wang, M.D., assistant research professor in the IU Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences. “The affected brain regions are important for controlling emotion and aggressive behavior.”

http://communications.medicine.iu.edu/newsroom/stories/2011/violent-video-games-alter-brain-function-in-young-men/

Meaning, what the study did show was "less activation in certain frontal brain regions," which "are important for controlling emotion and aggressive behavior."

Did they see any apparent behavior change then? No, because the participants only played a week's worth of violent video games. Thus, why they then concluded:


“These findings indicate that violent video game play has a long-term effect on brain functioning,” Dr. Wang said. “These effects may translate into behavioral changes over longer periods of game play.” [Emphasis added]

Thus, the conclusion is that more studies are needed in concluding the results longer periods of game play. What is definitively proven is the fact that, in at least one week's worth of violent video game playing, the left interior frontal lobe shows clear signs of decreasing activity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Exactly. And video games mustn't be excluded from this. I'm a video gamer. I love violent video games. The point here is that, with scientific results in which tells us what is being altered, we then have a basic understanding of how to address this potential problem - if a problem is present at all, that is. Yes, it's being supported by the Center for Successful Parenting, but do we really know if they gave direct funds into the research. And even then, why does that then definitively mean that the scientific research was being co-opted by a personal agenda? Do we have any evidence of this? No, we don't.

As far as I can see the study doesn't really tell us anything new and is simply being used as fodder for a lobby group.


There's various claims of these various scientists - scientists which make up of Tom Hummer, Ph.D., IU assistant research professor of psychiatry; William Kronenberger, Ph.D., associate professor of clinical psychology in the IU Department of Psychiatry; Kristine Mosier, D.M.D., Ph.D., IU associate professor of radiology; and Vincent P. Mathews, M.D., IU professor of neuroradiology - "cherry picking" data, and yet I see no evidence to these claims either.

I'm certainly not impugning the integrity of the scientists involved, my issue is that the lobby group responsible for this study will be the ones doing the cherry-picking.

[Desperado]

I don't understand what the point is you're making. Are you trying to say that the findings in this article should be rejected and that violent video games are not damaging at all on any level?
...
So we should reject this study in its entirety, is that what you're saying? I don't understand the relevancy this has to the point I made...


Not at all, this study may well be legitimate. But there's nothing to reject, so it hardly matters. It states the obvious: that tasks change brain activity, which has been proven countless times, and so it's pretty insignificant and boring.

It does not however state "that violent video games are damaging". That's your speculation, or at least you seem to think that this study is somewhat relevant to that debate. I reject that.


I think I've been pretty clear in making my point, which is that this whole debate about whether violent video games have adverse affects on emotion and cognition are inconclusive and that it should be a point of interest to determine its conclusively.And then you go on to call video games damaging, compare it with smoking...


If you accept that this isn't conclusive and this possibility exists, then I think you should cease the condescension, because we're making the same point.It's pretty conclusive in that tasks change brain activity. It (the study) has nothing to do with video games causing violent behaviour, or any behaviour, so for this it's neither conclusive nor inconclusive. It (research in general) is inconclusive that video gaming causes violent behaviour, and so you should cease the speculation.


Neither is there proof that there isn't...Sure, so research is important. Studies which have nothing to do with this however (such as these) don't though, and you associating this study with this issue is unscientific and biased. Which coincidentally is what the biased worded article does, and probably what the pressure group who conducted the study intended it to do.

And until it's somewhat proven either way, it would be as irrational to stop playing video games as it is to assume there's a teapot orbiting the Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot).


Demonstrating that there is more proven studies on the damage of smoking cigarettes doesn't negate the need to investigate further how violent video games affect peoples brain function...If anything it demonstrates that we clearly need to.Yes. But speculating and even asserting as you have done in this thread before there is proof is irrational.


I suggest you re-read my post because you've failed miserably in taking away its meaning. I've not made any definitive statement about violent video games or said that it's a problem or that there is evidence to support such an assertion...
If people want to damage their brains playing games then they can.

I apologise if I've misunderstood, but it's the fact that you connect this study (the actual conclusions of which are pretty irrelevant to the issue) with the debate on negative behaviour is mainly what I'm critical of.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm certainly not impugning the integrity of the scientists involved, my issue is that the lobby group responsible for this study will be the ones doing the cherry-picking.

I understand, but do you believe that these scientists allowed the lobby group to cherry pick the results on medical school's own website?

http://communications.medicine.iu.edu/newsroom/stories/2011/violent-video-games-alter-brain-function-in-young-men/

[Commissar Rykov]

I understand, but do you believe that these scientists allowed the lobby group to cherry pick the results on medical school's own website?

http://communications.medicine.iu.edu/newsroom/stories/2011/violent-video-games-alter-brain-function-in-young-men/
Let me know when their research gets peer reviewed in a proper Scientific Journal...something tells me it won't happen.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is what the article states:


“For the first time, we have found that a sample of randomly assigned young adults showed less activation in certain frontal brain regions following a week of playing violent video games at home,” said Yang Wang, M.D., assistant research professor in the IU Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences. “The affected brain regions are important for controlling emotion and aggressive behavior.”

http://communications.medicine.iu.edu/newsroom/stories/2011/violent-video-games-alter-brain-function-in-young-men/

Meaning, what the study did show was "less activation in certain frontal brain regions," which "are important for controlling emotion and aggressive behavior."

Did they see any apparent behavior change then? No, because the participants only played a week's worth of violent video games. Thus, why they then concluded:


“These findings indicate that violent video game play has a long-term effect on brain functioning,” Dr. Wang said. “These effects may translate into behavioral changes over longer periods of game play.” [Emphasis added]

Thus, the conclusion is that more studies are needed in concluding the results longer periods of game play. What is definitively proven is the fact that, in at least one week's worth of violent video game playing, the left interior frontal lobe shows clear signs of decreasing activity.

If the study isn't long enough to produce conclusive results then it's basically worthless for the purposes of formulating policy, even if the methodology is impeccable. Without firm evidence of significant behavioural changes, what is there to go on?

Also, how do violent video games compare in their effects to say, competitive sports?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Also, how do violent video games compare in their effects to say, competitive sports?

I believe scientists at the University of Missouri did a study on this as well:

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2011/0525-violent-video-games-reduce-brain-response-to-violence-and-increase-aggressive-behavior-university-of-missouri-study-finds/

[Commissar Rykov]

I believe scientists at the University of Missouri did a study on this as well:

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2011/0525-violent-video-games-reduce-brain-response-to-violence-and-increase-aggressive-behavior-university-of-missouri-study-finds/
What I find humorous about all this research is its very Bourgeois Nature. It is ducking around the main point and continues to try and avoid it which is that constant exposure to violence of any kind will lead to desensitization so why are video games the target and not violence in homes and on the streets? Because that would require a dramatic shakeup of Society and Bourgeois Ideals whereas banning video games will give the public a little bandaid while they are told to get back to their meaningless existence in the creation of Capital.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I believe scientists at the University of Missouri did a study on this as well:

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2011/0525-violent-video-games-reduce-brain-response-to-violence-and-increase-aggressive-behavior-university-of-missouri-study-finds/

Your link mentions nothing about competitive sports. I reckon there would be similar results if the experiment was repeated with the one difference that competitive sports were played instead of violent video games.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What I find humorous about all this research is its very Bourgeois Nature. It is ducking around the main point and continues to try and avoid it which is that constant exposure to violence of any kind will lead to desensitization so why are video games the target and not violence in homes and on the streets? Because that would require a dramatic shakeup of Society and Bourgeois Ideals whereas banning video games will give the public a little bandaid while they are told to get back to their meaningless existence in the creation of Capital.

That's a very good point.

[The Insurrection]

Trying to argue for the opinion that violent video games might have adverse effects on cognitive and emotional behaviour against a thread full of boys who love playing violent video games is clearly the definition of futile. :)

[Ocean Seal]

You guys are making me want to play videogames instead of finishing my homework. Not cool :mad:.

[∞]

Violence is a dialectical part of nature. Its good sometimes.

[The Insurrection]

Violence is a dialectical part of nature. Its good sometimes.
Yes, for self-preservation, not enjoyment. :rolleyes:

[Commissar Rykov]

Yes, for self-preservation, not enjoyment. :rolleyes:
Go take your boring moralism elsewhere. You have come to the wrong place if you think Revolutionary Leftists are going to reject Violence as inherently evil.

[The Insurrection]

Go take your boring moralism elsewhere. You have come to the wrong place if you think Revolutionary Leftists are going to reject Violence as inherently evil.
Where have I displayed moralism or claimed that the revolutionary left should reject violence as inherently evil? Get a grip of yourself and stop being fucking stupid. Having a little tantrum because someone criticises your little toy games is pathetic. You're 25 years old for crying out loud.

I don't reject violence when it's necessary. I simply find it odd that people can find enjoyment from anti-social behaviour like violence. Taking pleasure from violence usually indicates some of kind of pathology. I mean if they made a game where you went around raping people, would that be beyond criticism?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Trying to argue for the opinion that violent video games might have adverse effects on cognitive and emotional behaviour against a thread full of boys who love playing violent video games is clearly the definition of futile. :)

Try having evidence for a proposition before defending it. As it currently stands there is evidence that violent video games affect brain activity, but there is no reason to believe it does so any more than competitive sports.

Looking at the larger social picture doesn't bear out the hypothesis of video games causing social harm. Steven Pinker (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html) explains that societies have become less violent historically speaking. More recently, releases of violent videogames (http://gamepolitics.com/2008/04/12/comparing-violent-crime-to-violent-game-releases) have been negatively correlated with rates of violent crime. So whatever's driving that, video games are not having a significant anti-social effect.

[The Insurrection]

I haven't made any proposition.

[WeAreReborn]

I haven't made any proposition, you lunatic. :blink:
I was understanding of your position until recently. Now you are just turning to insults since you have no real empirical evidence to support your claims.

Yes it shows it does result in some cognitive and emotional changes. But why are you instantly assuming it is negative? For instance, in a game you can grow attached to certain characters (assuming its a story driven game) and thus have emotional attachment. Emotions can also come into play if frustration kicks in or if a challenge is completed and then contentment as the result. It obviously has cognitive changes since you adapt to the game mechanics and get better.

I am not just saying this because I am trying to justify my gaming. I would quickly give it up if it was proven to have detrimental effects on the brain or development. But that is not the case. This just shows things people already knew. So take your bullshit insults elsewhere.

[The Insurrection]

I was understanding of your position until recently. Now you are just turning to insults since you have no real empirical evidence to support your claims.

What claims? What claim have I made?


Yes it shows it does result in some cognitive and emotional changes. But why are you instantly assuming it is negative?Quote me where I have said that...


I am not just saying this because I am trying to justify my gaming. I would quickly give it up if it was proven to have detrimental effects on the brain or development. But that is not the case. This just shows things people already knew. So take your bullshit insults elsewhere.I'm afraid I've resulted to insults because people keep assigning opinions to me that I've never expressed. It is insane that people don't pay more attention to what I'm saying, instead they just make up my views and then attack me for them.

[WeAreReborn]

Quote me where I have said that...
Gladly.

If people want to damage their brains playing games then they can. But if these problems affect society, then society has a responsibility to act, just parents have a responsibility to protect their children's health. I think that's very important science.

Whether the study is conclusive or not, it demonstrates that violent video games alter brain functions. Why is that not a concern? I am not one of those people who want to "censor creativity of game developers", but I do think it's wise to pay attention to things that damage or alter peoples brains.
But besides that you are correct that you have been pretty mild and less presumptuous so I will admit to you that.


I'm afraid I've resulted to insults because people keep assigning opinions to me that I've never expressed. It is insane that people don't pay more attention to what I'm saying, instead they just make up my views and then attack me for them.
That is pretty much all that happens on an internet forum. :lol:

[The Insurrection]

Gladly.

Huh?

This quote...


If people want to damage their brains playing games then they can. But if these problems affect society, then society has a responsibility to act, just parents have a responsibility to protect their children's health. I think that's very important science. ...Is made as a response to why the science is interesting. I said it in the context of the science developing an understanding. If violent video games damage peoples brains then it's interesting. That was the point. Instead of just reading my responses, perhaps you could read what I'm responding to. The quote his thus...


It's not uninteresting to parents whose children play these games on a daily basis. Ultimately if people want to smoke they smoke. If people want to damage their brains playing games then they can. But if these problems affect society, then society has a responsibility to act, just parents have a responsibility to protect their children's health. I think that's very important science. I'm not making any claims or assuming that violent video games are negative, I'm simply addressing the issue of censorship in regards to the original hypothesis.

As for this...


Whether the study is conclusive or not, it demonstrates that violent video games alter brain functions. Why is that not a concern? I am not one of those people who want to "censor creativity of game developers", but I do think it's wise to pay attention to things that damage or alter peoples brains. ...How in any way is that an assumption of negativity? Again, I'm talking in the context of paying attention to the science in case the results become conclusive...


But besides that you are correct that you have been pretty mild and less presumptuous so I will admit to you that. Not besides that at all! I've never once made any claim about video games, violent or otherwise, I have merely stated that the evidence is not conclusive and that it should be a point of interest for those concerned at the potential affects they may have on the brain. I have been completely consistent about that point.

You have misquoted me and misrepresented me.


That is pretty much all that happens on an internet forum. :lol:It's because people don't really read what is happening in a debate. They just find a sentence they can disagree with and then disagree with it, irrespective of anything else. It's quite frustrating.

[Commissar Rykov]

Where have I displayed moralism or claimed that the revolutionary left should reject violence as inherently evil? Get a grip of yourself and stop being fucking stupid. Having a little tantrum because someone criticises your little toy games is pathetic. You're 25 years old for crying out loud.

I don't reject violence when it's necessary. I simply find it odd that people can find enjoyment from anti-social behaviour like violence. Taking pleasure from violence usually indicates some of kind of pathology. I mean if they made a game where you went around raping people, would that be beyond criticism?

The Revolutionary Left isn't a lifestyle go fuck yourself. I also find your constant attacks on video games and attacking other users over ages shows what a Bourgie Moralist Fuckup and Ageist shitbag you are. Why are people like you not restricted or banned?

[∞]

(Out of topic): Insurrectionist. Can you please stop judging people based on their age? Its border-lining ageism and does nothing for you except make you look like a prick. That is all.

[xub3rn00dlex]

(Out of topic): Insurrectionist. Can you please stop judging people based on their age? Its border-lining ageism and does nothing for you except make you look like a prick. That is all.

Those god damn ESRB ratings are also aegist as fuck. And if this proves true we'd better prepare future generations for even stricter control on content. :(

[X5N]

I can't help but feel like this is bullshit with a pro-censorship agenda.

[The Insurrection]

The Revolutionary Left isn't a lifestyle go fuck yourself. I also find your constant attacks on video games and attacking other users over ages shows what a Bourgie Moralist Fuckup and Ageist shitbag you are. Why are people like you not restricted or banned?

I haven't attacked you for your age I've just pointed out that you're a grown adult and you behave as if you have no control over your emotions. It's pretty sad. Sort your life out. I mean look at this display. All you can do is make straw man arguments and call me names? Touched a nerve have I?

You didn't answer my question either: Would it be OK to have games where you went around raping people? I'm just interested to know if you think there is a line?

[The Insurrection]

(Out of topic): Insurrectionist. Can you please stop judging people based on their age? Its border-lining ageism and does nothing for you except make you look like a prick. That is all.

You're right, it doesn't matter how old a person is. I apologise. It's never normal and appropriate to act like Rykov has.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't reject violence when it's necessary. I simply find it odd that people can find enjoyment from anti-social behaviour like violence. Taking pleasure from violence usually indicates some of kind of pathology. I mean if they made a game where you went around raping people, would that be beyond criticism?

I don't agree at all. People who take pleasure in simulated violence (whether in video games or sexually, like bdsm) know there's a stark difference between what they're engaging in and "reality", regardless of what the moralists think.

[The Insurrection]

I don't agree at all. People who take pleasure in simulated violence (whether in video games or sexually, like bdsm) know there's a stark difference between what they're engaging in and "reality", regardless of what the moralists think.

So you think it's acceptable for people to play video where you're a rapist? What about a video came where you're the commandant of Auschwitz and like SimCity your objective is to make the camps run more efficiently? You can have options to build more gas chambers or cram more Jews inside them? You can win points for accelerating human experimentation department? You get extra kudos for torturing children...Sound fun?

[Os Cangaceiros]

There already are games where you play a rapist, Japanese developers created them.

There's also a series of Japanese films called "Rapeman", featuring a superhero who rapes.

Now compare the rape and violent crime rate of Japan, per capita, to the rate of rape/violent crime in the USA. :rolleyes:

Humans portray all sorts of deviant behavior. Some of it is "unsavory", I don't like some of it myself. But as long as the individual engaged in it is not victimizing anyone I don't see a problem with it. Being concerned with the plethora of ways humans express themselves, including media, is something that shitbags and Nazis are concerned about, not leftists, who realize that offensive cultural items are the result of more pressing matters related to the society and environment we live in.

[The Insurrection]

Please don't assume that I am making links between violent video games and violence in wider society because that's not what I'm doing. Also, if you want to play these games that's entirely up to you, I don't think they should be censored (I don't even think that if it's proven to cause brain damage, as I've already said), but I find it problematic that people think it's perfectly normally and beyond criticism to have games where you play murderers or rapists.

The narratives in video games, as with all culture, are a consequence of the ideas dominant in society. You cannot detach the creative ideas that dominate in society from the conditions in which they originate. We live in a racist, sexist, capitalist society and our culture and attitudes reflect that. The idea that it's acceptable to make, let alone play, video games that sexually brutalises women or where American special forces soldiers kill Arabs and Russians is indicative of that society and you should be more critical of that.

[Decommissioner]

I'm curious to see of other forms of violent media, such as movies or even books, have the same effect.

[Meditation]

You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else,then you get alter brain function,then you want to kill some people,then you end up on an electric chair screaming im not guilty,and then,.....

mah fuck it games are for nerds anyway

[IndependentCitizen]

Damn psychologists, I don't want to read reports on games. I want to hear reports on micro-expressions and non-verbal communication. That research is really interesting, plus awesome.

[Smyg]

Please don't assume that I am making links between violent video games and violence in wider society because that's not what I'm doing. Also, if you want to play these games that's entirely up to you, I don't think they should be censored (I don't even think that if it's proven to cause brain damage, as I've already said), but I find it problematic that people think it's perfectly normally and beyond criticism to have games where you play murderers or rapists.



The fuck?

[The Insurrection]

The fuck?

As Explosive Situation says (the post previous to mine), apparently there is a game in Japan called Rapeman.

[Misanthrope]

All jokes aside, these games indoctrinate those (mostly men) from all walks of life into a militaristic culture.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Please don't assume that I am making links between violent video games and violence in wider society because that's not what I'm doing.

So if you're not doing that, and you're not defending the proposition that violent video games have negative individual effects (despite the lack of meaningful evidence), then what are you saying?


Also, if you want to play these games that's entirely up to you, I don't think they should be censored (I don't even think that if it's proven to cause brain damage, as I've already said), but I find it problematic that people think it's perfectly normally and beyond criticism to have games where you play murderers or rapists.

That's because no actual rape or murder of people is taking place. That innocent bystander I just wasted in Postal 2? Not only do they have no family to mourn their passing, but as a computer-generated entity they cannot plausibly be more aware of their situation than a simple insect.


The narratives in video games, as with all culture, are a consequence of the ideas dominant in society. You cannot detach the creative ideas that dominate in society from the conditions in which they originate. We live in a racist, sexist, capitalist society and our culture and attitudes reflect that. The idea that it's acceptable to make, let alone play, video games that sexually brutalises women or where American special forces soldiers kill Arabs and Russians is indicative of that society and you should be more critical of that.

So wait, you're saying that since violent societies produce violent video games, we should be getting worked up over the violent video games and not the actual violence taking place in the real world every day?

Talk about messed-up priorities, especially since actual violence pre-dates computer simulated violence by a wide margin, and must therefore come before computer simulation in the causal chain.

Oh, and actual violence used to be a whole lot worse. People in the bad old days were far more likely to personally experience or witness violence in the flesh for themselves. That probably had a far more brutalising effect than simulated violence that one consents to, since one knows when playing a game that the stakes are minimal.

[Lord Testicles]

All jokes aside, these games indoctrinate those (mostly men) from all walks of life into a militaristic culture.

[citation needed]

[The Insurrection]

So if you're not doing that, and you're not defending the proposition that violent video games have negative individual effects (despite the lack of meaningful evidence), then what are you saying?

I'm saying (repeatedly) that there is no conclusive evidence and therefore we should keep an open mind until there is.


That's because no actual rape or murder of people is taking place. That innocent bystander I just wasted in Postal 2? Not only do they have no family to mourn their passing, but as a computer-generated entity they cannot plausibly be more aware of their situation than a simple insect.

Yeah, but I think we need a more sophisticated analysis of violent cultures than this...


So wait, you're saying that since violent societies produce violent video games, we should be getting worked up over the violent video games and not the actual violence taking place in the real world every day?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I am making a Marxist critique of culture. Culture and ideas are a reflection of the society they are derived and therefore, since the culture and ideas we have now are derived from a racist, sexist and capitalistic hegemony, they require a critique. It's not acceptable to just say "oh well no one is actually getting raped" because that's not the point at all. The point is that patriarchical society normalises rape and these games have the potential to legitimise that normalisation. That doesn't mean that people are going to go out and rape, it just means that patriarchal hegemonic ideas are being maintained. As revolutionary "leftists" surely it's our job to critique capitalist culture and be aware of its affects on society and people inside it?

I really cannot see what is controversial about that point of view. Unless of course you have some fetishised love of video games.


Talk about messed-up priorities, especially since actual violence pre-dates computer simulated violence by a wide margin, and must therefore come before computer simulation in the causal chain.

I'm not prioritising anything other than the destruction of capital and it's culture, whether it's actualised violence or conceptualised violence. If it's part of capitalist culture then it should be critiqued and fought against if that's appropriate. It's not a question of either/or


Oh, and actual violence used to be a whole lot worse. People in the bad old days were far more likely to personally experience or witness violence in the flesh for themselves. That probably had a far more brutalising effect than simulated violence that one consents to, since one knows when playing a game that the stakes are minimal.

Right...And?

[OHumanista]

Sure you're free to critique culture, but I still think all sane (and even most insane) people can still realize the line separating fiction from reality and do not support in any way an atrocious act that happens in game if it happened in real life.
As for the rape game, it was banned and almost no one plays that. And as far as I know there are no other games that replicate a player character raping someone.

I do concede that capitalistic culture tries to glorify violence.

[manic expression]

All jokes aside, these games indoctrinate those (mostly men) from all walks of life into a militaristic culture.
Yes, I think they can, to a certain extent. The point about "rah rah US Army go" influences is an important one, and I think some videogamers think they know war when in reality they can't even conceive of how horrifying it is.

On the larger point of desensitization, I remember back when I was playing GTA3, killing thousands of virtual people in all sorts of ways; during that time, I was at an event and someone near me had a bottle smashed over the back of his head...and in that moment, after all my ultra-violent GTA adventures, I was so utterly scared that I couldn't even think. After all that GTA, I was anything but desensitized.

Virtual blood is not real blood, virtual death is not real death. Sure it's somewhat desensitizing, but IMO only on a conceptual level...the same way reading a book with lots of violence doesn't make you comfortable with actual pain and agony.

[The Insurrection]

Sure you're free to critique culture, but I still think all sane (and even most insane) people can still realize the line separating fiction from reality and do not support in any way an atrocious act that happens in game if it happened in real life.
As for the rape game, it was banned and almost no one plays that. And as far as I know there are no other games that replicate a player character raping someone.

Capitalist alienation and social oppression is far more insidious than you give it credit. It has nothing to do with whether people can "realise the line" separating fiction from reality. If you have games legitimising rape and murder then they are contributing to the continued normalisation of patriarchy and violence. As revolutionary "leftists" we want to move away from those justifications. Don't we?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm saying (repeatedly) that there is no conclusive evidence and therefore we should keep an open mind until there is.

That's not how science works. There's no conclusive evidence in favour of astrology, should we be keeping an open mind about that?


Yeah, but I think we need a more sophisticated analysis of violent cultures than this...

If actual people aren't getting hurt, and you've provided no evidence for that thus far, I do not see why anyone should waste their time.


No, that's not what I'm saying. I am making a Marxist critique of culture. Culture and ideas are a reflection of the society they are derived and therefore, since the culture and ideas we have now are derived from a racist, sexist and capitalistic hegemony, they require a critique. It's not acceptable to just say "oh well no one is actually getting raped" because that's not the point at all. The point is that patriarchical society normalises rape and these games have the potential to legitimise that normalisation.

Don't be a fucking idiot. Video games legitimise nothing, otherwise we'd be in a major crimewave right now thanks to the Grand Theft Auto series.


That doesn't mean that people are going to go out and rape, it just means that patriarchal hegemonic ideas are being maintained. As revolutionary "leftists" surely it's our job to critique capitalist culture and be aware of its affects on society and people inside it?

You have failed to establish that depicting something is the same as legitimising it.


I really cannot see what is controversial about that point of view. Unless of course you have some fetishised love of video games.

What's controversial is that it's arse-backwards. Video games featuring US soldiers stomping around the Middle East are made because that's what happens. Art reflects life, not the other way around. Also the reflection going on is like a funhouse mirror in that distortion happens, but thankfully the vast majority of people can readily distinguish between the real world and a fictional one.

Of course, I could dismiss your argument as simply the consequence of a fetish for modish pseudo-Marxist analysis, but I'm not going to because I have better arguments.


I'm not prioritising anything other than the destruction of capital and it's culture, whether it's actualised violence or conceptualised violence. If it's part of capitalist culture then it should be critiqued and fought against if that's appropriate. It's not a question of either/or

Why waste your time tilting at windmills? Attack the problem at it's source, not the symptoms.


Right...And?

The point is that real life is harsher than any game.

[HEAD ICE]

So you think it's acceptable for people to play video where you're a rapist? What about a video came where you're the commandant of Auschwitz and like SimCity your objective is to make the camps run more efficiently? You can have options to build more gas chambers or cram more Jews inside them? You can win points for accelerating human experimentation department? You get extra kudos for torturing children...Sound fun?

Where do you cross the line? What about couples or people who are into consensual hardcore bdsm type of shit? It even goes beyond video games, because you are actually physically acting out sexual violence but in a controlled setting.

Which begs the question, how come I never hear about practitioners of BDSM engaging in rampant sexual assaults. How come nobody is dumping money into studying if BDSM folks are off their kilter and are about to sexually abuse somebody impulsively? As mentioned earlier, this goes beyond video games in that you are actually physically partaking in it.

Never seen the headline "Serial Rapist a Sadomasochist."

[The Insurrection]

That's not how science works. There's no conclusive evidence in favour of astrology, should we be keeping an open mind about that?

Does astrology potentially cause emotional and cognitive damage?


If actual people aren't getting hurt, and you've provided no evidence for that thus far, I do not see why anyone should waste their time.Well, if you're whole basis of understanding reality is premised on this limited idea, then that's fine. You're perfectly entitled to have that view.


Don't be a fucking idiot. Video games legitimise nothing, otherwise we'd be in a major crimewave right now thanks to the Grand Theft Auto series.What you're doing is creating a logical fallacy called a straw man. You're proposing the idea that when I say "legitimise" I mean that there will be a major crime wave. That's a very reductive view of my opinion. I am not making the argument that video games legitimising violence means that people will go out and kill each other. As I've said about five times now.

When game developers produce a game like Modern Warfare they do so on the premise that a western imperialist army is a legitimate "good guy". When game developers produce games where all the female characters are sluts or deceptive and can be beaten and raped, they legitimises patriarchy. Unless the games are taking a specifically critical view of imperialism and patriarchy by subverting those standard societal dynamics, then they are legitimising them.

Legitimastion occurs when social, political and cultural oppressions are normalised or standardised in accordance with the society in which those oppressions arise. Videogames are not exempt from that analysis.


You have failed to establish that depicting something is the same as legitimising it.This picture essentially makes my point: Easy Bake Ovens (http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000875645/EasyBakeOven_1_answer_1_xlarge.png)


What's controversial is that it's arse-backwards. Video games featuring US soldiers stomping around the Middle East are made because that's what happens. Art reflects life, not the other way around.But that's precisely the point I'm making. The fact that art reflects US soldiers stomping around the Middle East is precisely why it needs to be critiqued...


Also the reflection going on is like a funhouse mirror in that distortion happens, but thankfully the vast majority of people can readily distinguish between the real world and a fictional one.I never said they couldn't.


Of course, I could dismiss your argument as simply the consequence of a fetish for modish pseudo-Marxist analysis, but I'm not going to because I have better arguments.The primary motivation of my argument is that I want to create a progressive society where patriarchy and jingoism are not standard, normalised views. The primary motivation of your argument seems to be that you like to play video games. If that's not right, then what is the fundamental point of you argument?


Why waste your time tilting at windmills? Attack the problem at it's source, not the symptoms.Why not attack both? I don't understand why it's a question of either/or? Also, prefiguration is a necessary requirement fir establishing a progressive post revolutionary society. Patriarchy and jingoism aren't going to disappear just because the workers own the means of production.


The point is that real life is harsher than any game.That's indisputable. It would be absurd for me to try and argue otherwise.

[The Insurrection]

Where do you cross the line?

In terms of what?

[Desperado]

Taking pleasure from violence usually indicates some of kind of pathology. I mean if they made a game where you went around raping people, would that be beyond criticism?

That's an interesting point. However, nearly all "violent" games you talk about aren't gory torture simulations. The violence, or causing pain to another human being, isn't the focus. It's rather about the strategy, competition, mastery, quick thinking and achievement. Fighting gives a good theme to link all this together. Just as chess is a simulation of war, but that's hardly why we play it.

[Smyg]

As Explosive Situation says (the post previous to mine), apparently there is a game in Japan called Rapeman.


What. So you think people believe it's "perfectly normally and beyond criticism" to play as a rapist because the Japanese, who are absolutely notorious for their fucked up media, have made one single fringe game?

[The Insurrection]

What. So you think people believe it's "perfectly normally and beyond criticism" to play as a rapist because the Japanese, who are absolutely notorious for their fucked up media, have made one single fringe game?

No :blink:

You seriously need to pay attention to the whole of a thread, rather than cherry-picking select quotes, because you are way, way off the mark.

[The Insurrection]

That's an interesting point. However, nearly all "violent" games you talk about aren't gory torture simulations. The violence, or causing pain to another human being, isn't the focus. It's rather about the strategy, competition, mastery, quick thinking and achievement. Fighting gives a good theme to link all this together. Just as chess is a simulation of war, but that's hardly why we play it.

I know gamers. I know that the violence is a large part of it.

But anyway, my argument has moved on from this point.

[Smyg]

No, I don't. That's not how I roll. I only read the last page when a discussion doesn't interest me.

[The Insurrection]

No, I don't. That's not how I roll. I only read the last page when a discussion doesn't interest me.

Then why comment on things then when you don't have a full understanding of what you're talking about? Surely it's better to be in control of all the facts, because you make a statement.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Does astrology potentially cause emotional and cognitive damage?

Anything could potentially cause emotional and cognitive damage in the right circumstances.


Well, if you're whole basis of understanding reality is premised on this limited idea, then that's fine. You're perfectly entitled to have that view.

If caring about actual people getting hurt is your idea of "limited" then I seriously have to wonder what you consider more important.


What you're doing is creating a logical fallacy called a straw man. You're proposing the idea that when I say "legitimise" I mean that there will be a major crime wave. That's a very reductive view of my opinion. I am not making the argument that video games legitimising violence means that people will go out and kill each other. As I've said about five times now.

Rape isn't a violent crime? News to me.


When game developers produce a game like Modern Warfare they do so on the premise that a western imperialist army is a legitimate "good guy". When game developers produce games where all the female characters are sluts or deceptive and can be beaten and raped, they legitimises patriarchy. Unless the games are taking a specifically critical view of imperialism and patriarchy by subverting those standard societal dynamics, then they are legitimising them.

Video games are not generally meant to be history lessons, way to miss the point of "entertainment" entirely. Sure, if a particular video game is replete with strident right-wing crap then that's an irritation that's liable to make me play something else, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd mock it thereafter.

But aside from that, I don't see how playing a villain protagonist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainProtagonist) necessarily represents legitimisation of what that protagonist does or can do in a game environment. I'm opposed to torture, but in Dungeon Keeper (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DungeonKeeper) one can torture one's own minion's to make them work faster, or torture enemy creatures into joining your side. But since I'm not actually torturing sapient beings, indeed I find the idea repulsive, where is the problem? Where does this idea come from that fiction and entertainment must all be sweetness and light?


Legitimastion occurs when social, political and cultural oppressions are normalised or standardised in accordance with the society in which those oppressions arise. Videogames are not exempt from that analysis.

This picture essentially makes my point: Easy Bake Ovens (http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000875645/EasyBakeOven_1_answer_1_xlarge.png)

Sure, but that's a different argument to the one you seemed to be making earlier. How do social conventions (making pink toys especially to appeal to girls) necessarily follow from minor changes in activity levels a small part of the brain?


The primary motivation of my argument is that I want to create a progressive society where patriarchy and jingoism are not standard, normalised views. The primary motivation of your argument seems to be that you like to play video games. If that's not right, then what is the fundamental point of you argument?

Nitpicking at people's choices of entertainment isn't going to help your case, especially since it's entirely possible to play a game without personally endorsing whatever happens in the game as something that should happen outside of it.


Why not attack both? I don't understand why it's a question of either/or? Also, prefiguration is a necessary requirement fir establishing a progressive post revolutionary society. Patriarchy and jingoism aren't going to disappear just because the workers own the means of production.

I've not seen you level a specific accusation against any game. Besides, whether or not you consider a game's opinions wrong or not has no bearing on it's ability to tickle the basal ganglia.

But, in a happy coincidence, it turns out that being a political screwball and/or a reactionary shit seems to preclude the ability to make a fun game. This person (http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/EzraSmith/rape-games-banned-in-japan-what--136624.phtml) can't seem to find much more information on the "Rapeman" games than Wikipedia has, which hardly indicates a great degree of popularity. Left Behind: Eternal Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Behind:_Eternal_Forces) has a poorly 38 out of 100 (http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/left-behind-eternal-forces) on Metacritic.

[The Insurrection]

Anything could potentially cause emotional and cognitive damage in the right circumstances.

That statement has absolutely no worth. Identifying the potential dangerousness of everything is a completely redundant point...

But anyway, I'm moving on from that particular part of the discussion.


If caring about actual people getting hurt is your idea of "limited" then I seriously have to wonder what you consider more important.

Another straw man. I didn't say "caring" about "actual people getting hurt" was limited. I said your view was limited.


Rape isn't a violent crime? News to me.

:blink:

What on Earth are you whittering on about? Of course it's a violent crime, where I did I say otherwise?

The point I was making is that the idea of "legitmisation" doesn't mean that there will be a violent crime wave, as you wrongly stated in your argument...I then explain what legitmisation means...


Video games are not generally meant to be history lessons, way to miss the point of "entertainment" entirely. Sure, if a particular video game is replete with strident right-wing crap then that's an irritation that's liable to make me play something else, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd mock it thereafter.

But this debate isn't about you, it's about society and the way culture, including videogames legitimise various kinds of oppression...


But aside from that, I don't see how playing a villain protagonist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainProtagonist) necessarily represents legitimisation of what that protagonist does or can do in a game environment. I'm opposed to torture, but in Dungeon Keeper (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DungeonKeeper) one can torture one's own minion's to make them work faster, or torture enemy creatures into joining your side. But since I'm not actually torturing sapient beings, indeed I find the idea repulsive, where is the problem? Where does this idea come from that fiction and entertainment must all be sweetness and light?

Again, you've constructed a straw man. This has nothing to do with entertainment being "sweet" or "light", it's about what it represents. If black people are always represented as ghetto thugs who always talk like idiots and get themelves into trouble, that legitimises a racist stereotype. With torture or rape in video games, the fact that this violence is represented uncritically as a normal dynamic is legitmised. The representation of that violence does nothing to challenge it, it simply reinforces it. To clarify, it' not the act itself which is the problem, it's the way it's represented.

Of course culture should be reflective of society, it's social oppressions and its ideas, but for us revolutionaries, it should be premised on a critical understanding of them. It shouldn't represent these things as normal, standard, legitimate dynamics, it should represent them as counter-productive as well as being counter-intuitive to the establishment of a progressive society.

The film Nil By Mouth stars Ray Winstone as a violent alcoholic who beats his wife. In one particularly brutal scene he thrashes her within an inch of her life. It's harrowing and terrible to watch. But Ray Winstone isn't represented there as a standard person whom you sympathise with, or want to be and whose application of violence is a normal response. He is represented as a product of alienation; as symptom of a fundamentally broken society. He is portrayed critically.


Sure, but that's a different argument to the one you seemed to be making earlier. How do social conventions (making pink toys especially to appeal to girls) necessarily follow from minor changes in activity levels a small part of the brain?

Yes, I'm making two different arguments. The argument that violent video games have the potential for emotional and cognitive damage is different to how they legitimise social oppression.


Nitpicking at people's choices of entertainment isn't going to help your case, especially since it's entirely possible to play a game without personally endorsing whatever happens in the game as something that should happen outside of it.

:lol:

This. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Peoples. Abilities. To. Differentiate. Reality. And. Fiction.


I've not seen you level a specific accusation against any game. Besides, whether or not you consider a game's opinions wrong or not has no bearing on it's ability to tickle the basal ganglia.

You've reduced my argument again: It's not a question of considering a games "opinions" as "wrong" or "right", it's about how those games reinforce social oppression.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That statement has absolutely no worth. Identifying the potential dangerousness of everything is a completely redundant point...

But anyway, I'm moving on from that particular part of the discussion.

Concession accepted.


Another straw man. I didn't say "caring" about "actual people getting hurt" was limited. I said your view was limited.

And my views here and now are primarily concerned with real people and their very real suffering. You called that "limited".


:blink:

What on Earth are you whittering on about? Of course it's a violent crime, where I did I say otherwise?

The point I was making is that the idea of "legitmisation" doesn't mean that there will be a violent crime wave, as you wrongly stated in your argument...I then explain what legitmisation means...

Yes, and your explanation is bollocks. If the depiction of something in a video game does not lead to increased incidences of same in the real world, how the fuck is it being legitimised? Especially since last I checked rape was still illegal in most countries.


But this debate isn't about you, it's about society and the way culture, including videogames legitimise various kinds of oppression...

Society doesn't have a single opinion on things. In the case of imperialist war, I think this has been amply demonstrated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War) already.


Again, you've constructed a straw man. This has nothing to do with entertainment being "sweet" or "light", it's about what it represents. If black people are always represented as ghetto thugs who always talk like idiots and get themelves into trouble, that legitimises a racist stereotype.

But they're not "always" represented in such a manner, this is my problem your attitude.


With torture or rape in video games, the fact that this violence is represented uncritically as a normal dynamic is legitmised. The representation of that violence does nothing to challenge it, it simply reinforces it. To clarify, it' not the act itself which is the problem, it's the way it's represented.

And that differs from game to game.


Of course culture should be reflective of society, it's social oppressions and its ideas, but for us revolutionaries, it should be premised on a critical understanding of them. It shouldn't represent these things as normal, standard, legitimate dynamics, it should represent them as counter-productive as well as being counter-intuitive to the establishment of a progressive society.

The film Nil By Mouth stars Ray Winstone as a violent alcoholic who beats his wife. In one particularly brutal scene he thrashes her within an inch of her life. It's harrowing and terrible to watch. But Ray Winstone isn't represented there as a standard person whom you sympathise with, or want to be and whose application of violence is a normal response. He is represented as a product of alienation; as symptom of a fundamentally broken society. He is portrayed critically.

And doubtless there are films which portray rape uncritically, and thus they can and should be criticised for that. But you're not arguing that films in general represent some kind of social malaise, so why jump on us for having a problem with moralistic scaremongering over videogames in general?


Yes, I'm making two different arguments. The argument that violent video games have the potential for emotional and cognitive damage is different to how they legitimise social oppression.

You abandoned the first in favour of the second, but the vagueness with which you've presented your second argument thus far (no attempt to show how supposed "legitimisation" actually translates into a meaningful social effect, speaking of violent video games in generalising, monolithic terms), leads me to believe it's nothing but a shifting of the goalposts.


:lol:

This. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Peoples. Abilities. To. Differentiate. Reality. And. Fiction.

So whence the legitimisation?


You've reduced my argument again: It's not a question of considering a games "opinions" as "wrong" or "right", it's about how those games reinforce social oppression.

Which you have yet to demonstrate.

[#FF0000]

Trying to argue for the opinion that violent video games might have adverse effects on cognitive and emotional behaviour against a thread full of boys who love playing violent video games is clearly the definition of futile. :)

Only if you have no evidence to back yourself up.

What a childish response.

anyway like Noxion, you're wrong because you're saying the problem is "videogames", when the problem is how things are presented in some (most) videogames.

I mean damn guy I play video games all the time and I'd agree there's plenty that's fucked with military shooters and this or that genre or game nowadays

[Misanthrope]

[citation needed]It glorifies war and blind nationalism. It tries to reestablish anti-communist hysteria in Call of Duty...

fuck that shit man. Why are the bad guys always brown? Why are redundant military chants played over and over?


Kids come up to me on a daily basis and say they want to be flying in the air force and dropping bombs on arabs, they make a fucking joke out of it. Fuck militaristic games...

[The Insurrection]

Concession accepted.

I didn't concede anything.


And my views here and now are primarily concerned with real people and their very real suffering. You called that "limited".It is limited. You're focusing your argument on some reductive view of what I've said. I've tried to explain that this is more than just people getting hurt. It's about the nature of culture and the way ruling class ideas are reinforced and legitmised with in it.


[Yes, and your explanation is bollocks. If the depiction of something in a video game does not lead to increased incidences of same in the real world, how the fuck is it being legitimised? Especially since last I checked rape was still illegal in most countries.When a social oppression is "depicted" as standard it justifies its existence, since it's not forcing it to be justified. If something like racism or patriarchy are not represented critically, but just as a normal social interaction, then the patriarchal and racist ideas of a capitalist society are reinforced.

Capitalist society oppresses women. Rape is a cause of oppression. If a game uncritically depicts or allows users to be rapists, and to enjoy that experience, does that challenge this social oppression or does it reinforce it? Or perhaps you think it's neutral, but in that case, how is it neutral? How is culture separated from the society we live in?

At the end of the day, it's clear to me that you're just not prepared to even entertain my argument as a possibility and instead of reading what I'm saying and considering its validity you're just prepared to reject it out of hand. This is why we're going around in circles.

If you don't think there is any problem with depicting rape as a normal social interaction (which is different to thinking that rape is OK) then that's up to you, but then these social dynamics and cultural acceptances aren't being challenged


Society doesn't have a single opinion on things. In the case of imperialist war, I think this has been amply demonstrated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War) already.But those millions of people don't control society and so their ideas in society are not the ruling ideas.


But they're not "always" represented in such a manner, this is my problem your attitude.I'm not saying that they are.


And that differs from game to game. ...Right...


And doubtless there are films which portray rape uncritically, and thus they can and should be criticised for that. But you're not arguing that films in general represent some kind of social malaise, so why jump on us for having a problem with moralistic scaremongering over videogames in general?I'm not arguing that violent videogames "in general" are causing a "violent malaise". I know you're upset because you think someone is attacking the premise of your life, but you need to calm down and realise that I'm really not.


You abandoned the first in favour of the second, but the vagueness with which you've presented your second argument thus far (no attempt to show how supposed "legitimisation" actually translates into a meaningful social effect, speaking of violent video games in generalising, monolithic terms), leads me to believe it's nothing but a shifting of the goalposts.I haven't "abandoned" my first argument, Ive simply accepted there's no conclusive evidence to support the claim made by the OP, just as there is no conclusive evidence to support yours.

I have provided you with a social effect, that cultural acceptances of social oppression are maintained. Clearly you don't think that the continued hegemony of ruling class ideas is "meaningful", but that's up to you.

As Marx says in The German Ideology: (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm) "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it."

That means that culture, represented here as videogames, but can include all things, reinforce capitalist hegemony. This isn't about people running around beating each other up, it's about alienation. It's about the affects ruling dominance has on how we think and create.

Now you can reject Marx's argument if you want, but then provide a counter argument. Just saying "you've got no evidence" is pathetic and misunderstands the nature of my argument to begin with.


So whence the legitimisation? As I've explained, the legitimisation comes through the uncritical nature of the videogame.


Which you have yet to demonstrate.Demonstrate what? That culture is dominated by the ruling class? That culture reinforces and legitmises capitalist hegemony? Look around you. You live in a capitalist society, if you cannot see how culture reinforces social oppression, then I can't teach it to you...But I mean, do you honestly think games like Modern Warfare and Battlefield and games that view rape and torture are all just neutral? Do you think these things are separated from the society in which they've derived?

I cannot make my argument any plainer than I have. If it's possible for you to cease with your combativeness and just consider what I'm saying then perhaps the discussion can move forward.

[The Insurrection]

Only if you have no evidence to back yourself up.

Evidence for what?

[#FF0000]

Evidence for what?

That violent video games might have adverse effects on cognitive and emotional behavior. You haven't presented any and all we have in this thread is a profoundly unhelpful study that shows that flashing lights and sounds make your brain do things, making no conclusions and surprising absolutely nobody.


I'm not arguing that violent videogames "in general" are causing a "violent malaise". I know you're upset because you think someone is attacking the premise of your life, but you need to calm down and realise that I'm really not.And then there's mess like this.

Listen, kid, Noxion is being exceedingly civil here, if a bit blunt on calling out your bullshit, while you're the one being aggressive and condescending because people disagree with what you've apparently done a very poor job of communicating.

I say that, by the way, to give you the benefit of the doubt, rather than say you're just dishonest for jumping from "violent videogames might have adverse effects on cognitive and emotional behavior [sic]" to "themes in video games reinforce and legitimize oppression".

So check the condescension and your own combativeness before trying to call out anyone else on theirs -- especially when they're behaving a lot better than you are.


Kids come up to me on a daily basis and say they want to be flying in the air force and dropping bombs on arabs, they make a fucking joke out of it. Fuck militaristic games...

Depends. ARMA 2, for example, p. much presents the "clean and professional" face of war. But, then again, there's the Private Military Company campaign where shit gets a lot more gray-and-black and you're fighting along side unstable, dangerous, and thoroughly unlikeable people.

Then there's all the player-made missions that potentially really show the grittiness of it all.

And then there's the Red Orchestra series that actually provided a view of WW2 combat that made me sit there and say "Jesus Christ this is horrifying".

Like I said, it depends. I think games are getting a little more mature. Still got a loooooooooooooong way to go, though.

And Call Of Duty will always be fucking terrible.

[The Insurrection]

And then there's mess like this.

Listen, kid, Noxion is being exceedingly civil here, if a bit blunt on calling out your bullshit, while you're the one being aggressive and condescending because people disagree with what you've apparently done a very poor job of communicating.

Kid? I stopped being a kid about 30 years ago.

And I think it's important not to conflate bad communication with not understanding. I have been perfectly clear about my opinion. If there are points you don't understand then I'll be happy to clarify. I mean, why not actually address the Marxist position I've put forward instead of attacking my behaviour in this thread and trying to demonstrate my inconsistency. Neither of those are arguments against how violent videogames can reinforce social oppression.


I say that, by the way, to give you the benefit of the doubt, rather than say you're just dishonest for jumping from "violent videogames might have adverse effects on cognitive and emotional behavior [sic]" to "themes in video games reinforce and legitimize oppression". A nice example of American cultural imperialism.

I don't come from America, so as far as I'm concerned you're the one misspelling the world 'behaviour'.

And I'm not jumping from anything. They are two completely different opinions based on two completely different trains of thought and which, wait for it, I agree with simultaneously...Imagine having two thoughts at the same time...Madness.

The reason I stopped the line about brain function is because I have no evidence to support my claim in any way reaching conclusive. I realise I don't know enough about the subject to adequately defend my thought. Plus, I'm quite happy being wrong on that particular issue.


So check the condescension and your own combativeness before trying to call out anyone else on theirs -- especially when they're behaving a lot better than you are.It's interesting how people interpret things on the Internet. If you think I'm being condescending that's perfectly OK with me. If you think NoXion is being as polite as he can be, then that's also fine.

I've interpreted this situation differently and so I'll act accordingly, irrespective of your view. :)

[#FF0000]

Kid? I stopped being a kid about 30 years ago.

Be sure to act like it, guy. I mean, you sort of are, in a way, but not in a good one.


I mean, why not actually address the Marxist position I've put forward instead of attacking my behaviour in this thread and trying to demonstrate my inconsistency.

Because I don't necessarily disagree with you but you are being kind of a dick, especially with the comments about people who do play video games.


A nice example of American cultural imperialism.

I don't come from America, so as far as I'm concerned you're the one misspelling the world 'behaviour'.

Nah actually that's not what the [sic] thing was about and actually now that I've slept on it I'm not sure if I even remember why I put it there anyway.


And I'm not jumping from anything. They are two completely different opinions based on two completely different trains of thought and which, wait for it, I agree with simultaneously...Imagine having two thoughts at the same time...Madness.

Oh, look, there it is again.


The reason I stopped the line about brain function is because I have no evidence to support my claim in any way reaching conclusive. I realise I don't know enough about the subject to adequately defend my thought. Plus, I'm quite happy being wrong on that particular issue.


Yup, I missed where you made that jump.


It's interesting how people interpret things on the Internet. If you think I'm being condescending that's perfectly OK with me. If you think NoXion is being as polite as he can be, then that's also fine.

I've interpreted this situation differently and so I'll act accordingly, irrespective of your view. :)

Well that's just dandy then.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I didn't concede anything.

Yes you did, when you admitted you had no conclusive evidence for your hypothesis that video games cause cognitive damage. Which is when you shifted the goalposts.


It is limited. You're focusing your argument on some reductive view of what I've said. I've tried to explain that this is more than just people getting hurt. It's about the nature of culture and the way ruling class ideas are reinforced and legitmised with in it.

You have still to demonstrate that this supposed "legitimisation" in media actually modifies thoughts and behaviour, rather than being the consequence of said thoughts and behaviour.


When a social oppression is "depicted" as standard it justifies its existence, since it's not forcing it to be justified.

If something like racism or patriarchy are not represented critically, but just as a normal social interaction, then the patriarchal and racist ideas of a capitalist society are reinforced.

Capitalist society oppresses women. Rape is a cause of oppression. If a game uncritically depicts or allows users to be rapists, and to enjoy that experience, does that challenge this social oppression or does it reinforce it? Or perhaps you think it's neutral, but in that case, how is it neutral? How is culture separated from the society we live in?

At the end of the day, it's clear to me that you're just not prepared to even entertain my argument as a possibility and instead of reading what I'm saying and considering its validity you're just prepared to reject it out of hand. This is why we're going around in circles.

If you don't think there is any problem with depicting rape as a normal social interaction (which is different to thinking that rape is OK) then that's up to you, but then these social dynamics and cultural acceptances aren't being challenged

When is rape ever depicted as "a normal social interaction"? I've never got that impression, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.


But those millions of people don't control society and so their ideas in society are not the ruling ideas.

No single agenda "controls" society, otherwise there wouldn't be any diversity of opinion.


I'm not arguing that violent videogames "in general" are causing a "violent malaise". I know you're upset because you think someone is attacking the premise of your life, but you need to calm down and realise that I'm really not.

Then what are you arguing? That certain examples of media depict things that you find disagreeable? Well, I knew that already.


I haven't "abandoned" my first argument, Ive simply accepted there's no conclusive evidence to support the claim made by the OP, just as there is no conclusive evidence to support yours.

Mine is the null hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis), thank you very much. Much as the absence of evidence for teapots orbiting Mars favours the null hypothesis that there are no such objects orbiting the planet.


I have provided you with a social effect, that cultural acceptances of social oppression are maintained. Clearly you don't think that the continued hegemony of ruling class ideas is "meaningful", but that's up to you.

As Marx says in The German Ideology: (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm) "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it."

That means that culture, represented here as videogames, but can include all things, reinforce capitalist hegemony. This isn't about people running around beating each other up, it's about alienation. It's about the affects ruling dominance has on how we think and create.

Now you can reject Marx's argument if you want, but then provide a counter argument. Just saying "you've got no evidence" is pathetic and misunderstands the nature of my argument to begin with.

Evidence is irrelevant to your argument? In that case you might find the Philosophy or Religion forum more suitable.


As I've explained, the legitimisation comes through the uncritical nature of the videogame.

Does it fuck. People don't come to video games as a blank slate, they bring along their own prejudices and preconceptions. For example, despite the release of many videogames where one has the ability to kill innocent bystanders, nobody is calling for murder to be taken off the books.


Demonstrate what? That culture is dominated by the ruling class? That culture reinforces and legitmises capitalist hegemony? Look around you. You live in a capitalist society, if you cannot see how culture reinforces social oppression, then I can't teach it to you...But I mean, do you honestly think games like Modern Warfare and Battlefield and games that view rape and torture are all just neutral? Do you think these things are separated from the society in which they've derived?

Show me evidence that such things have a definite cause-and-effect, and we'll talk.


I cannot make my argument any plainer than I have. If it's possible for you to cease with your combativeness and just consider what I'm saying then perhaps the discussion can move forward.

Evidence would be helpful.

[Lord Testicles]

It glorifies war and blind nationalism. It tries to reestablish anti-communist hysteria in Call of Duty...

fuck that shit man. Why are the bad guys always brown? Why are redundant military chants played over and over?


Kids come up to me on a daily basis and say they want to be flying in the air force and dropping bombs on arabs, they make a fucking joke out of it. Fuck militaristic games...

I asked for a citation not another (factually inaccurate) statement. The bad guys are not always brown and military chants aren't played over and over. Take your tin foil hat off, the geeks over at square enix are not trying to indoctrinate you.

[IndependentCitizen]

It glorifies war and blind nationalism. It tries to reestablish anti-communist hysteria in Call of Duty...

fuck that shit man. Why are the bad guys always brown? Why are redundant military chants played over and over?


Kids come up to me on a daily basis and say they want to be flying in the air force and dropping bombs on arabs, they make a fucking joke out of it. Fuck militaristic games...

Yeah, this is true. But in multi-player you can play as those arabs blowing those kids up.

[The Insurrection]

Yes you did, when you admitted you had no conclusive evidence for your hypothesis that video games cause cognitive damage. Which is when you shifted the goalposts.

But if you read the thread I've maintained this position throughout the entire debate.


You have still to demonstrate that this supposed "legitimisation" in media actually modifies thoughts and behaviour, rather than being the consequence of said thoughts and behaviour.I'm not making the argument that it modifies thoughts or behaviour.


No single agenda "controls" society, otherwise there wouldn't be any diversity of opinion.The ruling class are the people who control the means of production and therefore control the intellectual dominance of society. Those who do not own the means of production are subject to it.


Then what are you arguing? That certain examples of media depict things that you find disagreeable? Well, I knew that already.I've told you what I'm arguing. I'm not going to keep repeating it, it's just ridiculous.


Mine is the null hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis), thank you very much. Much as the absence of evidence for teapots orbiting Mars favours the null hypothesis that there are no such objects orbiting the planet.OK.


Evidence is irrelevant to your argument? In that case you might find the Philosophy or Religion forum more suitable.Let's put it a different way. I'm not making an argument, I'm defining reality. The materialist analysis of culture is based on that reality. If you don't accept a materialist understanding of culture then that's up to you, but what kind of half-baked, lunatic revolutionary are you?

I don't understand what evidence you think you need? What piece of evidence will I provide that will make you agree with a materialist analysis of culture. Either you agree that "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force" or you don't.

Do you agree with class struggle?


Does it fuck. People don't come to video games as a blank slate, they bring along their own prejudices and preconceptions. For example, despite the release of many videogames where one has the ability to kill innocent bystanders, nobody is calling for murder to be taken off the books.You don't understand my argument.


Show me evidence that such things have a definite cause-and-effect, and we'll talk.Again, you don't grasp what I'm saying.

[Desperado]

I know gamers. I know that the violence is a large part of it.


And because you know it, this must be the case. Always.

I know gamers. I know that the violence is a small part of it, though varies massively between players.


Either you agree that "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force" or you don't.


The ruling ideas. Not every idea. Neither is every ruling idea necessarily wrong.


With torture or rape in video games, the fact that this violence is represented uncritically as a normal dynamic is legitmised.

Because most violent video games contain rape and torture. And because it's always represented uncritically: never in a negative light and performed by the game's anti-heroes whom you are meant to overcome. Sure.

You genuinely need a better understanding of the content of the majority of violent video games before you criticise them, because some of your comments are almost comic in their hysterical misrepresentation.

Your posts also illustrate that you have a big generalisation problem.

[The Insurrection]

And because you know it, this must be the case. Always.

I know gamers. I know that violence is a small part of it, though varies massively between players.

Right. But in actual fact, it's not really about individual players it's about culture and society.


Because most violent video games contain rape and torture. And because (in the very rare cases where it is included) it's always represented uncritically, not in a negative light and perform by the game's anti-heroes. Sure.I don't follow that paragraph.


You genuinely need a better understanding of the content of the majority of violent video games before you criticise them.As a matter of fact I've played them. I've played Battlefield 2 and the two Modern Warfares for example. They're pro-west, imperialist propaganda that glorify jingoism and western militarism.


Your posts also illustrate that you have a big generalisation problem.Generalised about what?

[The Insurrection]

The ruling ideas. Not every idea. Neither is every ruling idea necessarily wrong.

Right. Then why not play videogames that don't reinforce those ruling ideas and reject and openly criticise those videogames that do?

[Desperado]

Right. But in actual fact, it's not really about individual players it's about culture and society.

In actual fact the sum total of individuals' ideas are what make up collective culture. So it's entirely about that.


I don't follow that paragraph.It was sarcastic. When, in the tiny majority of violent video games which include torture and rape, it tends to be in a negative light. Performed by the "baddies".


As a matter of fact I've played them. I've played Battlefield 2 and the two Modern Warfares for example. They're pro-west, imperialist propaganda that glorify jingoism and western militarism.You've suddenly stopped criticising violent video games, and started criticising pro-west, imperialist video games. Don't waste your breath: I am equally critical of the latter.


Generalised about what?About the content of violent video games and the thoughts on the violence in video games by those who play them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But if you read the thread I've maintained this position throughout the entire debate.

How can you maintain a position without evidence to back it up?


I'm not making the argument that it modifies thoughts or behaviour.

Yes yes, it "legitimises" things, but since you have disavowed that it has anything to do with thoughts and behaviour I seriously wonder why anyone should care.


The ruling class are the people who control the means of production and therefore control the intellectual dominance of society. Those who do not own the means of production are subject to it.

The ruling class is not some monolithic bloc. They expend plenty of energy squabbling amongst themselves.


Why don't you address the argument? The materialist analysis of culture is based on reality. If you don't accept a materialist understanding of culture then that's fine, but you need to explain why?

I don't understand what evidence you think you need? What piece of evidence will I provide that will make you agree with a materialist analysis of culture. Either you agree that "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force" or you don't.

Since the ruling class is not a monolithic entity, so the views espoused by them are also not-monolithic. Take secularism. Some elements of the ruling class support it, while other elements are in favour of religious influence in public life.


Do you agree with class struggle?

Of course. I just recognise that it's not some simplistic Manichean struggle between the heroic proles and the dastardly bourgeoisie.


You don't understand my argument.

Again, you don't grasp what I'm saying.

Keep dancing around the fact that you have no evidence for your claims, you're not fooling anyone.

[Desperado]

Right. Then why not play videogames that don't reinforce those ruling ideas and reject and openly criticise those videogames that do?

Sure. But games reinforcing ruling ideas =/= violent video games. Another generalisation.

[The Insurrection]

How can you maintain a position without evidence to back it up?

You seem to manage it.


Yes yes, it "legitimises" things, but since you have disavowed that it has anything to do with thoughts and behaviour I seriously wonder why anyone should care.Well, that's a completely different argument.


The ruling class is not some monolithic bloc. They expend plenty of energy squabbling amongst themselves.Beside the point.


Since the ruling class is not a monolithic entity, so the views espoused by them are also not-monolithic. Take secularism. Some elements of the ruling class support it, while other elements are in favour of religious influence in public life. True, and video games have the ability not to reinforce social oppressions and reactionary ideas.


Of course. I just recognise that it's not some simplistic Manichean struggle between the heroic proles and the dastardly bourgeoisie.You've reduced my argument again. Is this some debate tactic? Are you just responding to me for the sake of responding or do you actually want to forward and shape ideas?

No, this isn't about heroes and villians :rolleyes: It's about understanding the nature of reality.


Keep dancing around the fact that you have no evidence for your claims, you're not fooling anyone.My evidence is the materialist definition of reality. You're yet to actually disagree with it.

[The Insurrection]

Sure. But games reinforcing ruling ideas =/= violent video games. Another generalisation.

:blink:

[Desperado]

:blink:

Not all games reinforce the ruling ideas. Not all violent games reinforce the ruling ideas. You are creating a straw-man argument. I am sure that most here arguing against you are critical of the content of games which reinforce certain* ruling ideas. I am. But games reinforcing the ruling ideas =/= violent video games, so it's irrelevant to criticism of the latter. Unless you irrationally generalise, as you have been.

*Not all ruling ideas are necessarily wrong.

[The Insurrection]

Not all games reinforce the ruling ideas.

I never said they did...


Not all violent games reinforce the ruling ideas.

I never said they did...


You are creating a straw-man argument. I am sure that most here arguing against you are critical of the content of games which reinforce the ruling ideas.

I never said they weren't...


But games reinforcing the ruling ideas =/= violent video games, so it's irrelevant to criticism of the latter.

As far as I could make out, NoXion is making a defence of violent video games. I am suggesting that violent video games that reinforce and legitimise social oppression and reactionary ideas and values should be criticised and/or rejected.

NoXion keeps telling me that they don't legitimse anytihng. Or, actually, he just keeps saying "show me the evidence"...Hence my culture argument.

But look. This discussion is really boring and isn't stimulating on any level. Thanks to everyone for the spirited discussion, but I'm sure there are better ones to have. :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You seem to manage it.

The null hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis), I already pointed it out.


Well, that's a completely different argument.

Beside the point.

Like hell it is. It means that you cannot simply judge something to be good or bad purely on whether or not the ruling class endorses it or not.


You've reduced my argument again. Is this some debate tactic? Are you just responding to me for the sake of responding or do you actually want to forward and shape ideas?

No, this isn't about heroes and villians :rolleyes: It's about understanding the nature of reality.

And the nature of reality is that the ruling class is not some all-encompassing hyper-competent conspiracy to crush the working class. There is ample evidence for this.


My evidence is the materialist definition of reality. You're yet to actually disagree with it.

A definition of something can't be evidence, because definitions are by their very nature abstract. Try again.

[The Insurrection]

A definition of something can't be evidence, because definitions are by their very nature abstract. Try again.

If you consider my definition correct then you have reality as your evidence. If you do not consider my definition correct then presumably you believe reality is defined as something else, in which case there can't be any evidence. Either you accept a materialist understanding of reality or you do not. Materialism is predicated on the idea that all things come from matter. You want me to provide evidence for that assertion? History...reality...

[Desperado]

I never said they did...

I never said they did...

I never said they weren't...

I am suggesting that violent video games that reinforce and legitimise social oppression and reactionary ideas and values should be criticised and/or rejected.

So you find nothing wrong with non-reactionary violent video games? It certainly seemed that you did.


Trying to argue for the opinion that violent video games might have adverse effects on cognitive and emotional behaviour against a thread full of boys who love playing violent video games is clearly the definition of futile. :)




Violence is a dialectical part of nature. Its good sometimes.
Yes, for self-preservation, not enjoyment. :rolleyes:


Taking pleasure from violence usually indicates some of kind of pathology.

[ColonelCossack]

I recently did an experiment into whether Black Ops zombies affected mathematical reasoning. The % scores in maths tests were (very) marginally better after playing the video game. Really, really marginally, but the correlation was there, and it was there consistently.

That said, it was for a shitty piece of shitty biology GCSE shitty coursework, and as a result it was deeply basic and flawed and not worth S***. :thumbup1:

[The Insurrection]

So you find nothing wrong with non-reactionary violent
video games? It certainly seemed that you did.

I personally would prefer videogames that used violence to design it in a way that it was self-critical and for the purposes of forwarding a progressive understanding of society and social dynamics.


Trying to argue for the opinion that violent video games might have adverse effects on cognitive and emotional behaviour against a thread full of boys who love playing violent video games is clearly the definition of futile.

I was being glib. It was an attempt at humour. Hence the smiley face.


Yes, for self-preservation, not enjoyment.

Do you disagree with that? Why do people find enjoyment in violence? Sure violent video games can be non-reactionary and not reinforce social oppression, but wouldn't that mean the violence was designed as part of a critical narrative rather than for enjoyment?


Taking pleasure from violence usually indicates some of kind of pathology.

This is true though. But it wasn't a particularly serious point.

[Desperado]

I personally would prefer videogames that used violence to design it in a way that it was self-critical and for the purposes of forwarding a progressive understanding of society and social dynamics.


And what about games that are neither reactionary nor do this? That is, as are plenty of violent video games.

[The Insurrection]

Is that really possible?

[Desperado]

Sure violent video games can be non-reactionary and not reinforce social oppression, but wouldn't that mean the violence was designed as part of a critical narrative rather than for enjoyment?

I disagree. Mount & Blade, or even Super Mario, is hardly a critical narrative (nor reactionary), but its purpose is enjoyment. Most games are pretty bland politically, because propaganda is boring.

[The Insurrection]

Would you consider Super Mario violent?

[Smyg]

You kill sentient beings. By stomping on them. So, yeah.

[The Insurrection]

Ban it!

[Desperado]

Because you use force to stop the will of others. I.e you kill mushrooms, fight that dragon whatever.

[The Insurrection]

The oppression of mushrooms is a very important issue. As for dragons rights, I think it's necessary to make this our top priority.

[Desperado]

But that's precisely the point. The oppression of the knighted warriors I kill with my sword isn't a pressing issue either. And even if there were knighted warriors in my neighbourhood, I wouldn't be motivated or hold a different opinion because of the game. We're sane enough to realise the gap between reality and a game. Anybody who isn't shouldn't be playing video games.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Quote "The second group did not play a video game at all during the two-week period."
the first one "10 hours at home for one week" that is ten hours a day, on top of work and schooling

[ColonelCossack]

Zombies were made by Nazis, so killing them is defacto anti fascism.

[X5N]

Ugh...I just saw a commercial for Battlefield 3 that had that "I've got 99 problems but a [you know] aint one" song, but with the you-know-what word censored out.

About the whole militarism thing...

I don't think it's so much the video games that indoctrinate young men into militaristic culture. Boys were throwing pine cones at eachother and wanting to join the army and kill Germans/Commies/Arabs long before shooter games.

[MotherCossack]

cor blimey, i'll try again....
third time lucky (its a long story... my mac's got gremlins....or someone in my house hates me... could it be youngblood coss....naaaa...)
anyway....
yeah...
i believe i have some useful evidence, maybe not quite statistically proven, but very relevant none-the-less....
i used to work with young people(mid 1990's ish) when video games were hurtling towards universal acceptance and daily playage by upwards of 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 people. what? exaggerate, me! ha! never....
the young folk in question went from bog standard little horrors, with a fair portion of unique possibility, wonderful personality, quirky creativity and of course hilarious sense of humour......
to unhelpfully lethargic, bored, annoyingly obtuse, worryingly aggressive, grumbling halfwits, in the time it took to announce;
"who wants to play on the sega megadrive?"
it was so obvious, to anyone with a brain, that something about the popular little game had a huge impact on the people who played it.
and more importantly for me, (as the person responsible) the great little video game that was so easy to switch on, had a major effect on the dynamics of the whole group.
basically it fucked the whole thing up, and made the job a total nightmare.
i tell no lie!!
first... it was quite a nice job.
enter... new snazzy video game... for rainy days and mondays...
result... f---ing nightmare job... f---ing nightmare kids.... hell.... quit...
extended period in insane asylum... ok.... maybe not...
but it was that extreme and that clear...
the kind of experience that gives parenting a bad name...
honestly... youngblood cossack... you almost never happened...!

[Game Girl]

I've played violent video games since I was 5. I don't have the urge to go out and murder someone with a plastic bag or a pen. (Manhunt and Manhunt 2. lol)

[MotherCossack]

i have never played any such gaMES AND EVERY DAY I WANT TO KILL LOADSA FOLK.

[Ele'ill]

Ever played the ENTIRE half-life series all the way through in one sitting? It has more to do with losing touch with reality. My mind was gone for about a day.

[Game Girl]

i have never played any such gaMES AND EVERY DAY I WANT TO KILL LOADSA FOLK.

Oh my god..That post killed me. :laugh: