The President of the US has meeting to discuss video games and violence

[Doobeedoo]

Video games as lame scapegoat. Smoke screen just not to actually blame guns. 

[Ryujin2003]

Video game violence isn't what it's portrayed too be. I've played"violent" videogames since Doom, Wolfenstein, and Duke Nukem. I never shot anyone or anything for pleasure or revenge on even anger. And as an adult, watching a live AQ decapitation  was surreal.

 

Real world violence didn't and didn't even come close to videogames.

 

But on the same desensitizing token, is your child playing with toys guns, plastic army men,  and hell.. watching the horrible global atrocities on TV everyday also going to have the same effect?

 

Maybe it's s global societal issue. Let's just keep not fixing it. That's worked up till now.

[Taf the Ghost]

6 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Video games as lame scapegoat. Smoke screen just not to actually blame guns. 

You can thank the media for the "games cause violence" stuff. They've prevented any of the actual research from ever really breaking through the discussion, which is why this is probably the best opportunity for the game companies to actually break it through the MSM filter. Unfortunately, they're probably going to be a bunch of sad sacked idiots and nothing will get through, but that's unfortunately to be expected.

 

Watching the "gaming press" do a 180 on the topic has been ironically funny, but those "press" are so pathetic they barely matter.

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

You can thank the media for the "games cause violence" stuff. They've prevented any of the actual research from ever really breaking through the discussion, which is why this is probably the best opportunity for the game companies to actually break it through the MSM filter. 

That or companies won't publish the research leading to its slow decay and/or redaction. 

[mr moose]

21 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

That or companies won't publish the research leading to its slow decay and/or redaction. 

 

I believe all good research is published, It's just that your average Joe doesn't read journal articles. And when the media do read and report on them they do so from a layman's perspective and fail to do the article justice. 

 

The other issue is funding for research, while the research has been reasonable for this type of thing there is always more to do.  Unfortunately some disciplines are harder to get funding for.  Essentially because the funding sources are scared of the likely results or the social backlash from such a study. 

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

That or companies won't publish the research leading to its slow decay and/or redaction. 

The "Games = Violence" lies have been around for a long, long time. There's actually quite a bit of research on it, and almost nothing has shown any sort of connection.

57 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

I believe all good research is published, It's just that your average Joe doesn't read journal articles. And when the media do read and report on them they do so from a layman's perspective and fail to do the article justice. 

 

The other issue is funding for research, while the research has been reasonable for this type of thing there is always more to do.  Unfortunately some disciplines are harder to get funding for.  Essentially because the funding sources are scared of the likely results or the social backlash from such a study. 

A lot of good research won't ever see the light of day, but that has far more to do with the current (& disastrous) state of scientific publication.

 

In the case of gaming, there's plenty of research about it due to being considered "bad" by certain factions. It crops up as something easy to attack because the image sold by the Media is that "gamers" are all weak, pathetic young men. Those are one of the few groups in society that the media can attack without tripping over Progressive Activists. Which is always hilarious, as the media themselves are normally getting plastered every weekend because of their horrible working environments. 

 

What you're running into is a professionally constructed Narrative, one that was launched in the early 2000s. These things stick because they've set the "Window of Discussion" on the topic. It is now framed that the only acceptable position is that "Games = Violence". It's important to certain factions to maintain this when it becomes important, as it shields both Movies & Music from criticism. (Of which there actually is far more corrosive effects from both, but those are actually useful for building other narratives. Thus, they have to be defended.)

 

This is why this is probably the best chance the "Gaming Community" actually has to break that narrative, but I highly doubt the people going are going to be willing to actually stand firm on the point & explain the reality. Trump will actually listen, but you have to actual be ready to talk about the subject and not just act like a lawyer.

 

Though, please let no one kid themselves that we don't actually know the issues involved in all of this. Apparently reporting someone to the local police & the FBI that they're going to shoot up a school, yet nothing happens, qualifies as a massive failure of the system. 

[DildorTheDecent]

17 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Fallout literally has nuclear bombs as weapons and body parts that can disintegrate... and we're looking at Call of Duty for a comical blood "spurt" or "splatter" followed by a [Charlie Chaplin] slip-o-death... 

 

My disappointment has leveled up... unfortunately. 

You can also pretty much murder everything and everyone in Fallout. Preston Garbage pissing you off? Slaughter the settlements. Can't help the settlement if there's no-one to help in them.

[ARikozuM]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I believe all good research is published, It's just that your average Joe doesn't read journal articles. And when the media do read and report on them they do so from a layman's perspective and fail to do the article justice. 

There are plenty of examples where research is paid for and conducted. The results are less than desirable so they're trashed (see EA's piracy research in EU). 

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

 

A lot of good research won't ever see the light of day, but that has far more to do with the current (& disastrous) state of scientific publication.

 

 

I hope your not lumping all science journals into together when you are talking about the shit ones. 

 

There sure are some shit journals masquerading as respectable science outlets. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

There are plenty of examples where research is paid for and conducted. The results are less than desirable so they're trashed (see EA's piracy research in EU). 

There are plenty of examples of ads masquerading as scientific research being published in crappy online journals that are little more than magazines open to the highest bidder.   But you can't buy research in real journals like nature.   This trope about funding being the causality of the outcome needs to die.   Just because you can create your own journal and pretend to be a scientist doesn't mean all science is bogus and all journals are shills.

 

[mr moose]

For those who wonder about what it takes:

http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2014/11/03/how-to-get-published-in-high-impact-journals-big-research-and-better-writing/

 

of 11,000 submissions only 856 were accepted.  They have to be very robust in their design.  A good research paper must stand on it's own merits to be published in a good journal, therefore who pays for it is moot, the only thing that mattes is the research is legitimate. 

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

There are plenty of examples of ads masquerading as scientific research being published in crappy online journals that are little more than magazines open to the highest bidder.   But you can't buy research in real journals like nature. 

What? EA paid for research to be conducted. Once the findings were available to the , EA decided to not publish them at all. It's like Bayer and aspirin. "Helps 3% of people in a five-year period!" which becomes a 0% when looked at within 10 years. You can make your research say anything and publish only when it says what you want it to. 

 

I'm also not talking about publishing in a scientific journal. I'm referring to papers that are conducted and done. You can do research and publish it on your own website. 

[mr moose]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

What? EA paid for research to be conducted. Once the findings were available to the , EA decided to not publish them at all. It's like Bayer and aspirin. "Helps 3% of people in a five-year period!" which becomes a 0% when looked at within 10 years. You can make your research say anything and publish only when it says what you want it to. 

 

I'm also not talking about publishing in a scientific journal. I'm referring to papers that are conducted and done. You can do research and publish it on your own website. 

Then you are intentionally trying to paint all science as "paid for" becasue you only want to concentrate on marketing guff or old studies that have been superseded.

 

All I can say is if people are not willing to invest the time required to understand how the systems works and what is legitimate and what is basically supermarket tabloid, then go live in a cave.  Because nearly everything we enjoy today by way of modern medicine, internet technology  and computers, longevity and health, food and improved lifestyle is the result of "paid for" research.  Absolutely everything we have is the result of corporations and governments giving money to researchers and those articles being published.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I'm also not talking about publishing in a scientific journal. I'm referring to papers that are conducted and done. You can do research and publish it on your own website. 

 

Then you are not talking about peer reviewed research.  All you are talking about are people exchanging conjecture, that is not legitimate published research.

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Then you are intentionally trying to paint all science as "paid for" becasue you only want to concentrate on marketing guff or old studies that have been superseded.

 

All I can say is if people are not willing to invest the time required to understand how the systems works and what is legitimate and what is basically supermarket tabloid, then go live in a cave.  Because nearly everything we enjoy today by way of modern medicine, internet technology  and computers, longevity and health, food and improved lifestyle is the result of "paid for" research.  Absolutely everything we have is the result of corporations and governments giving money to researchers and those articles being published.

Again, I'm saying that ANY research conducted should be made public knowledge and, once peer-reviewed or checked for sound methodology, published. No research should be hidden just for the sake of those that paid for it. Doing so shows bias towards an end. 

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Again, I'm saying that ANY research conducted should be made public knowledge and, once peer-reviewed or checked for sound methodology, published. No research should be hidden just for the sake of those that paid for it. Doing so shows bias towards an end. 

But that's just it, The reason most of the articles don't get published is because they aren't upto a standard that should be published.  And to be quite honest I am not too sure there is any benefit to making bad research public.    We have reputable journals, if the research is not in them it then it isn't reputable and should be ignored not publicized. 

 

I really don't see how any of this creates a bias, in fact the very stringent requirements of publishing effectively kills all bias.

[yian88]

videogames did nothing wrong

[Skanky Sylveon]

I want to know what possessed Nikolas Cruz to do what he did.

I have my own opinions on what should be done, but unless we make a serious effort on trying to understand what went through his head (and everyone else that does this), then nothing will be prevented.

[Arika]

4 minutes ago, Cinnabar Sonar said:

I want to know what possessed Nikolas Cruz to do what he did.

what ever it was I'm sure as shit he's regretting it now as he's facing a possible death penalty

[Mooshi]

Video games don't put holes in people, just saying. 

[LordofGangsters]

15 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Video games as lame scapegoat. Smoke screen just not to actually blame guns. 

So how come if a drunk driver crashes you don't blame the car? 

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, LordofGangsters said:

So how come if a drunk driver crashes you don't blame the car? 

'Cuz guns and cars lobby (bribe) a lot more money per annum than game developers do. 

[AshleyAshes]

9 minutes ago, LordofGangsters said:

So how come if a drunk driver crashes you don't blame the car? 

You say this while ignoring how heavily regulated the production, distribution, and consumtion of alcohol is?

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

You say this while ignoring how heavily regulated the production, distribution, and consumtion of alcohol is?

Which reminds me of Paws in Motion (event supporting the Humane Society of Manatee County) being sponsored by Budweiser... They had more flags and trash cans with their decals than the number of total sponsors. 

[asus killer]

3 hours ago, LordofGangsters said:

So how come if a drunk driver crashes you don't blame the car? 

this analogy makes no sense. Just saying. The car is not sold as a murder simulator. No point in defending something with wrong arguments, it's the best way to be destroyed in a discussion.