Funny I suddenly just got the urge to find this woman and murder her horribly, maybe if I'm lucky I can get them to think that stupid X causes Sin #Y books cause people to become murderers with self esteem. 
"Games Cause Rape" Psychiatrist Defends Her Position
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Really a backhanded explanation, isn't it? It's like she's explaining it, but she's also threatening to beat you with that same explanation.
Now, I wouldn't say I don't see where she's coming from on this. In fact, I can see where almost all these people are coming from who come out of the woodworks when they see some new FPS or whatever. They think "oh, that's super-violent, we don't want kids exposed to this!" And I can support that. These are not games for kids. Even the ESRB and other gamers will blatantly point out that Bulletstorm and games like it aren't for kids. So why is this an issue? Because some parents are stupid enough to actually buy games like this for them.
An example, you ask? Very well. I was in a Gamestop inside of a month ago, and while I was perusing their selection of new games (because I refuse to buy used from there) I overheard some kid talking with his parents. Apparently the kid had gotten his parents to buy him two World War II-themed FPS games (Call Of Duty 2 and Medal of Honor Airborne, if you must know) and said kid was talking about which games he already had so that his parents didn't get the same game twice. To this, all I could do was think, "wow, it is amazing how these parents are exposing their child to violence. I mean I know the older Call of Duty and Medal of Honor games are pretty tame by FPS standards, but even so, it's still about shootin' dudes." To be fair, maybe they'll monitor their child's gaming habits and prove me wrong, maybe not, but I'm getting off the topic.
The point is Bulletstorm is targeting a certain audience (console First-Person Shooter fans of a 17-24 age range) and some people are concerned about it falling into the hands of a younger demographic. And that's fine, young kids can be and are impressionable and could be taking away the wrong message from games like this. But you know who to blame when little Tommy gets his hands on this? Not the gaming community, not the ESRB (who never seems to catch any flak despite their ratings are, for the most part, ignored by the consumer base), not the store who sold the game (who are explicitly trained to not sell M-rated games to people under 17), not the developers or the publishers. The blame lies squarely on mommy and daddy for buying the game for their child.
Now, I wouldn't say I don't see where she's coming from on this. In fact, I can see where almost all these people are coming from who come out of the woodworks when they see some new FPS or whatever. They think "oh, that's super-violent, we don't want kids exposed to this!" And I can support that. These are not games for kids. Even the ESRB and other gamers will blatantly point out that Bulletstorm and games like it aren't for kids. So why is this an issue? Because some parents are stupid enough to actually buy games like this for them.
An example, you ask? Very well. I was in a Gamestop inside of a month ago, and while I was perusing their selection of new games (because I refuse to buy used from there) I overheard some kid talking with his parents. Apparently the kid had gotten his parents to buy him two World War II-themed FPS games (Call Of Duty 2 and Medal of Honor Airborne, if you must know) and said kid was talking about which games he already had so that his parents didn't get the same game twice. To this, all I could do was think, "wow, it is amazing how these parents are exposing their child to violence. I mean I know the older Call of Duty and Medal of Honor games are pretty tame by FPS standards, but even so, it's still about shootin' dudes." To be fair, maybe they'll monitor their child's gaming habits and prove me wrong, maybe not, but I'm getting off the topic.
The point is Bulletstorm is targeting a certain audience (console First-Person Shooter fans of a 17-24 age range) and some people are concerned about it falling into the hands of a younger demographic. And that's fine, young kids can be and are impressionable and could be taking away the wrong message from games like this. But you know who to blame when little Tommy gets his hands on this? Not the gaming community, not the ESRB (who never seems to catch any flak despite their ratings are, for the most part, ignored by the consumer base), not the store who sold the game (who are explicitly trained to not sell M-rated games to people under 17), not the developers or the publishers. The blame lies squarely on mommy and daddy for buying the game for their child.
wow, i didnt know that had games AT THE BEGINNING OF FUCKING TIME.
rape is caused by unfulfilled sexual urges, not brain stimulation.
the apes raped each other, primitive humans raped each other, modern humans rape each other, games as we now know them have only been around for 50 or 60 years i think.
rape is caused by unfulfilled sexual urges, not brain stimulation.
the apes raped each other, primitive humans raped each other, modern humans rape each other, games as we now know them have only been around for 50 or 60 years i think.
For the record, she apparently linked to other "evidence" as well, although these were the most relevant. More links can be found here:
http://drcarole.tumblr.com/ [http://drcarole.tumblr.com/]
http://drcarole.tumblr.com/ [http://drcarole.tumblr.com/]
She's nothing but a proxy for media outlets which rely on a sensationalized 'scape goat' to help sell their product. It's a business simply concerned with making a product and its respective market is a predominantly conservative middle class demographic.
This is further proven by the fact that this 'poster' woman has offered no concrete evidence to support her claims. Also, that so many people -- including those of the Escapist -- are reacting first with their emotions, shows that it has been an effective media campaign.
She's cited a number of blogs, news articles and essays which have not been peer reviewed -- thereby having little credibility. This says it all.
This is further proven by the fact that this 'poster' woman has offered no concrete evidence to support her claims. Also, that so many people -- including those of the Escapist -- are reacting first with their emotions, shows that it has been an effective media campaign.
Oh, wow.Andy Chalk said:
She's cited a number of blogs, news articles and essays which have not been peer reviewed -- thereby having little credibility. This says it all.
So basically because she has enough of an established position, she decides she can go 'cry sum moar'? Heheh...all of those mentiones of big names...Larry King...all of those trophies on her wall...I guess it'd be silly to not wave them around a bit so that they can shine in the spotlight of this new media attention and of course completely validate the 'authenticity' of her studies. After all...she is more or less close to being a 'sacred cow', right?
"When I was first asked to provide studies, I did not have them on my fingertips - not because I didn't know they existed - but because I thought that everyone already knew about these studies and I had them filed away."
That was a sweeping assumption. I would have thought someone of your position would be more compitent than to make one of those.
NEVER assume that everyone knows all the subject matter. It only makes you look like a know-it-all elitist. She has also failed again to actually provide these studies.
"When the Columbine murders took place, there were national polls where people voted on what they believed caused the two young men to kill. Media violence ranked high on the list, so I, obviously mistakenly, assumed that people still knew about the studies showing this connection - and believed them to have proven the link."
One again re-affirming her sweeping statement and making a few other crippling mistakes.
For one, 'conviction is a more dangerous enemy to truth than lies'. If I am thinking of the right disaster, there was a rumor (And yes, it IS A RUMOR. The killer didn't even OWN Doom, let alone the supposed custom maps that simulated the floor-plan of the school.) that he used Doom as a simulator to train for the mass-murder. With a rumor like that floating around, of course a huge amount of people who don't know all the facts (or the less level-headed individuals) are going to be saying they thought the game did it.
The results of that poll cannot even remotely be trusted.
That was a sweeping assumption. I would have thought someone of your position would be more compitent than to make one of those.
NEVER assume that everyone knows all the subject matter. It only makes you look like a know-it-all elitist. She has also failed again to actually provide these studies.
"When the Columbine murders took place, there were national polls where people voted on what they believed caused the two young men to kill. Media violence ranked high on the list, so I, obviously mistakenly, assumed that people still knew about the studies showing this connection - and believed them to have proven the link."
One again re-affirming her sweeping statement and making a few other crippling mistakes.
For one, 'conviction is a more dangerous enemy to truth than lies'. If I am thinking of the right disaster, there was a rumor (And yes, it IS A RUMOR. The killer didn't even OWN Doom, let alone the supposed custom maps that simulated the floor-plan of the school.) that he used Doom as a simulator to train for the mass-murder. With a rumor like that floating around, of course a huge amount of people who don't know all the facts (or the less level-headed individuals) are going to be saying they thought the game did it.
The results of that poll cannot even remotely be trusted.
Rock Paper Shotgun [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/02/15/bulletstormgate-lieberman-offers-evidence/] concludes that Lieberman and that APA article has got a really bad case of selection bias and completely failed to present firm evidence, and there's pretty much zero conclusion that can be drawn either way.
Seems to me that Fox has a habit of attacking video games for things that they know nothing about. First, Mass Effect for basically being a sex simulator. A claim based in nothing since NONE of the people making that claim had ever seen/played the game or the parts in question. Eventually, the woman had to apologize for her statement.
Now it causes people to be rapists? As a gamer and a woman, I find offense in that statement. Rape is a pretty harsh word to just toss out there. One that garners a lot of attention since the claim is about an entertainment form that not all people understand or participate in. What makes it worse, is the fact that her statement has absolutely no foundation or proof to back it up.
Hey, how can I get a lot of attention? Oh, I know. I'm mention video games and then make some senseless accusations that will have video game haters jumping on my side, pointing fingers and yelling I told you so, while at the same time, making those on the side defensive and angry enough that they get worked up.
Yeah, that always works so well. Video games have been around for decades and they aren't going away. It's about time everyone gets use to it.
Now it causes people to be rapists? As a gamer and a woman, I find offense in that statement. Rape is a pretty harsh word to just toss out there. One that garners a lot of attention since the claim is about an entertainment form that not all people understand or participate in. What makes it worse, is the fact that her statement has absolutely no foundation or proof to back it up.
Hey, how can I get a lot of attention? Oh, I know. I'm mention video games and then make some senseless accusations that will have video game haters jumping on my side, pointing fingers and yelling I told you so, while at the same time, making those on the side defensive and angry enough that they get worked up.
Yeah, that always works so well. Video games have been around for decades and they aren't going away. It's about time everyone gets use to it.
What bothers me about this whole issue is that it seems like Ms. Lieberman tried and failed to gather some major evidence to help strengthen her side of the argument. So rather than swallow her pride, and apologize for giving a false statement, (or even stating that she still believes in what she said, but can provide no evidence) she decides to defend her original position and provide some "studies" to show that she's correct.
It's one thing to try and defend your side of the argument when you have genuine evidence, even if there's very little of it. At least then any statements or claims you make do have some merit to them. Ms. Lieberman had no definitive evidence however. Instead, she had a several year old poll of people's opinions on media violence, and a never say never attitude.
She's hurting her own career, and annoying all those around her at this point.
It's one thing to try and defend your side of the argument when you have genuine evidence, even if there's very little of it. At least then any statements or claims you make do have some merit to them. Ms. Lieberman had no definitive evidence however. Instead, she had a several year old poll of people's opinions on media violence, and a never say never attitude.
She's hurting her own career, and annoying all those around her at this point.
So I came across this in the "Contemporary Immortality" article today:
Funny how familiar this sounds, no?
"When the Columbine murders took place, there were national polls where people voted on what they believed caused the two young men to kill. Media violence ranked high on the list"
Since when does a poll giving to the general population count as research with a viable attachment to science?
It sounds to me like she is pulling most of this shit out of her ass!
Since when does a poll giving to the general population count as research with a viable attachment to science?
It sounds to me like she is pulling most of this shit out of her ass!
If I had to speculate, I would say that she is doing this for attention. It's like her argument isn't even founded on evidence - she's using the assumption that associating with negative media automatically makes you more likely to emulate it in real life. If this is true, there are two questions to consider: 1. Would we really stop people from viewing negative media if this were true? 2. Where's the proof that the media is for sure the issue? This lady is just resting on the laurels of her degree, rather than the subject at hand.
If you dont play games, your not qualified to comment on them. End of discussion. I dont want to see anyone let up on her until she admits that.
OR until she shows us her steam/psn/live account to prove she actually knows what shes talking about.
OR until she shows us her steam/psn/live account to prove she actually knows what shes talking about.