So, why do politicians hate video games.

[Saint of M]

For the same reason they hate gays, immigrants, D&D and rock and roll: easy scapegoats for complicated issues.

Maybe so, but this is bipartisan. THose that hate and love gays, guns, Jesus will skip down the hallway hand in hand on this issue.

The average age of a US Senator is about 60 and a US congressperson is about 50(mostly due to an influx of millennials elected in 2018). Which pretty much means a lot of them see Video games as quartermunchers or maybe phone games that their kids/grandkids play with no particular value.

Add to this that Senior Citizens(65 and older) tend to make up a very large percentage of voters(for reasons I'm not going to go into here) and you have the same issue. Old people catering to/reelecting other old people(many of whom have been sitting in the same seats for decades), most of whom probably don't know much about or care much for video games and since the New Media is evil, yeah, it's easy to cast blame on them.

I wonder how long this will be the case as the older generation stop voting after a certain point in their age due to either feeling they are not right of mind or tune with things enough anymore, senility, or their bodies give up and they start going on their next great adventure on the other side.

 

[Silvanus]

Ya politicians will talk about violent video games, they talk about violet movies, violent books, violent anything. They aren't talking about the games they are talking about the violence.

No, I don't think this is true. President Trump quite explicitly blamed video games for a mass shooting a little while ago. I've not heard anything even approaching that for films or literature in many years.

Video games make for a very easy scapegoat, particularly for a base which is already fairly reactionary and composed primarily of an older generation (Republican voters).

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

Ya politicians will talk about violent video games, they talk about violet movies, violent books, violent anything. They aren't talking about the games they are talking about the violence.

No, I don't think this is true. President Trump quite explicitly blamed video games for a mass shooting a little while ago. I've not heard anything even approaching that for films or literature in many years.

Video games make for a very easy scapegoat, particularly for a base which is already fairly reactionary and composed primarily of an older generation (Republican voters).

If your using video games as a scapegoat, you don't hate video games. You just wanted a scapegoat. Trump also blamed movies, metal illness and even guns. He wasn't looking to knock video games down a peg.


But let me pose another thought. What if people talk about violent video games because they are simply more violent then movies. Like you can argue that the hypothetical video game is more violent then the hypothetical movie. (It's hard to compare one to one but as a whole I do think it's true that video games on aggregate are more violent then other media.)

 

[Silvanus]

If your using video games as a scapegoat, you don't hate video games. You just wanted a scapegoat. Trump also blamed movies, metal illness and even guns. He wasn't looking to knock video games down a peg.

Of course he doesn't personally have a visceral distaste for video games. nomotag was saying that politicians are just talking about violence in general; that's not the case when figures specifically scapegoat one particular medium. He has no interest in talking about violence in general: he does have an interest in shifting conversations away from regulation/ the NRA.

 

[Dalisclock]

For the same reason they hate gays, immigrants, D&D and rock and roll: easy scapegoats for complicated issues.

Maybe so, but this is bipartisan. THose that hate and love gays, guns, Jesus will skip down the hallway hand in hand on this issue.

The average age of a US Senator is about 60 and a US congressperson is about 50(mostly due to an influx of millennials elected in 2018). Which pretty much means a lot of them see Video games as quartermunchers or maybe phone games that their kids/grandkids play with no particular value.

Add to this that Senior Citizens(65 and older) tend to make up a very large percentage of voters(for reasons I'm not going to go into here) and you have the same issue. Old people catering to/reelecting other old people(many of whom have been sitting in the same seats for decades), most of whom probably don't know much about or care much for video games and since the New Media is evil, yeah, it's easy to cast blame on them.

I wonder how long this will be the case as the older generation stop voting after a certain point in their age due to either feeling they are not right of mind or tune with things enough anymore, senility, or their bodies give up and they start going on their next great adventure on the other side.

Pretty sure it's gonna be a combination of the older voters dying off and the younger ones increasing in number. One could argue that older voters should have their voting rights contingent on meeting basic competency tests(kind of like how Voter ID or residency laws exist) but that would raise holy hell among certain politicians, particularly the ones who depend on the older vote to stay in office.

 

[stroopwafel]

They don't.

This one one of the weird bits about gamers. Games aren't weird. They are not outside. Their main stream normal now, but we (gamers) haven't been able to change our feelings. politicians don't hate games. They don't love games. Games are just normal now. Ya politicians will talk about violent video games, they talk about violet movies, violent books, violent anything. They aren't talking about the games they are talking about the violence.

No, politicians already tried to make incursions into personal liberties by specifically trying to ban certain kind of videogames. They never tried to do that with movies or any other kind of medium. I believe the only reason they couldn't follow through is b/c it bounced off the first amendment in supreme court.

Trying to ban videogames is a modern kind of book burning but thankfully it's protected by the constitutional right of free speech.

 

[Lufia Erim]

If videogames can have positives effects on certain people, why couldn't they also have negative effects?

Gamers obviously have a bias, which is why their cries are ignored.

Here's an easy example.

If Sad music can make you sad and that sadness can make you cry, and happy music can make you happy and that happiness makes you smile/laugh, then why can't angry music make you angry and that anger have you act out?

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

They don't.

This one one of the weird bits about gamers. Games aren't weird. They are not outside. Their main stream normal now, but we (gamers) haven't been able to change our feelings. politicians don't hate games. They don't love games. Games are just normal now. Ya politicians will talk about violent video games, they talk about violet movies, violent books, violent anything. They aren't talking about the games they are talking about the violence.

No, politicians already tried to make incursions into personal liberties by specifically trying to ban certain kind of videogames. They never tried to do that with movies or any other kind of medium. I believe the only reason they couldn't follow through is b/c it bounced off the first amendment in supreme court.

Trying to ban videogames is a modern kind of book burning but thankfully it's protected by the constitutional right of free speech.

There was never a chance video games would really be banned. We felt like they would, but there was never a realistic possibility they would be. In the well over 10 years since that time video games have gotten more secure.

 

[stroopwafel]

If videogames can have positives effects on certain people, why couldn't they also have negative effects?

Gamers obviously have a bias, which is why their cries are ignored.

Here's an easy example.

If Sad music can make you sad and that sadness can make you cry, and happy music can make you happy and that happiness makes you smile/laugh, then why can't angry music make you angry and that anger have you act out?

That last one is a stretch. If any kind of creative expression resonates with people or evokes an emotional response then it's testament of it's artistic qualities or subjective interpretation of it. Transformative quality is the mere definition of art. That doesn't make any sane person want to 'act out'. That is just ridiculous. It exists on a completely different plane from crazy people who commit (gun) violence. It's not like crazy needs an excuse. Crazy needs access to mental health programs or psychiatric care in an early stage and no access to guns.

Access to guns is the problems here. The same violent videogames are played all over the world but this random gun violence is almost exclusively an American problem.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

If videogames can have positives effects on certain people, why couldn't they also have negative effects?

Gamers obviously have a bias, which is why their cries are ignored.

Here's an easy example.

If Sad music can make you sad and that sadness can make you cry, and happy music can make you happy and that happiness makes you smile/laugh, then why can't angry music make you angry and that anger have you act out?

That last one is a stretch. If any kind of creative expression resonates with people or evokes an emotional response then it's testament of it's artistic qualities or subjective interpretation of it. Transformative quality is the mere definition of art. That doesn't make any sane person want to 'act out'. That is just ridiculous. It exists on a completely different plane from crazy people who commit (gun) violence. It's not like crazy needs an excuse. Crazy needs access to mental health programs or psychiatric care in an early stage and no access to guns.

Access to guns is the problems here. The same violent videogames are played all over the world but this random gun violence is almost exclusively an American problem.

People can act out in a lot of ways. Like video games could help confidence people guns are cool and necessary, so support measures to increase access to guns.

 

[CaitSeith]

If videogames can have positives effects on certain people, why couldn't they also have negative effects?

Gamers obviously have a bias, which is why their cries are ignored.

Here's an easy example.

If Sad music can make you sad and that sadness can make you cry, and happy music can make you happy and that happiness makes you smile/laugh, then why can't angry music make you angry and that anger have you act out?

If sadness only makes you cry and happiness only makes you laugh, why would anger make you do anything but shout out loud in anger?

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Money. Interest groups pay them to say they hate them so they, the groups, can collect donations. Also lawyers LOVE video game litigation. Because nothing ever happens and they get to charge out the ass for it. Its basically sitting at the ATM taking $500 an hour

 

[Thaluikhain]

That last one is a stretch. If any kind of creative expression resonates with people or evokes an emotional response then it's testament of it's artistic qualities or subjective interpretation of it. Transformative quality is the mere definition of art. That doesn't make any sane person want to 'act out'. That is just ridiculous. It exists on a completely different plane from crazy people who commit (gun) violence. It's not like crazy needs an excuse. Crazy needs access to mental health programs or psychiatric care in an early stage and no access to guns.

Access to guns is the problems here. The same violent videogames are played all over the world but this random gun violence is almost exclusively an American problem.

Access to guns is obviously one of the really big factors, but that's not to say there aren't others.

IMHO, video games absolutely can promote this or that, in exactly the same way as any other artform. When people do that on purpose we call it propaganda (or advertising), after all.

 

[Lufia Erim]

If videogames can have positives effects on certain people, why couldn't they also have negative effects?

Gamers obviously have a bias, which is why their cries are ignored.

Here's an easy example.

If Sad music can make you sad and that sadness can make you cry, and happy music can make you happy and that happiness makes you smile/laugh, then why can't angry music make you angry and that anger have you act out?

That last one is a stretch.

That doesn't make any sane person want to 'act out'. That is just ridiculous. It exists on a completely different plane from crazy people who commit (gun) violence. It's not like crazy needs an excuse. Crazy needs access to mental health programs or psychiatric care in an early stage and no access to guns.

Is it? Anger is an emotion is it not? Just like Sadness and Happiness. From what i can tell, normal, healthy individuals, experience anger. From what i gathered also, normal healthy individuals make poor decision while Sad, Happy or Angry. Excluding Anger seems disingenuous at best.

The problem is, people are looking at Videogames as something that WILL make you violent rather than Can make you violent.

There's a difference. And different people react in different ways to media. Some people will watch a sad movie and cry. Others will watch a sad movie, and feel comfort ( happiness) and again other will watch the same movie and feel angry.

And yet, as soon as videogames are discussed, gamers, ignore the "angry". It's hypocritical.

 

[Lufia Erim]

If videogames can have positives effects on certain people, why couldn't they also have negative effects?

Gamers obviously have a bias, which is why their cries are ignored.

Here's an easy example.

If Sad music can make you sad and that sadness can make you cry, and happy music can make you happy and that happiness makes you smile/laugh, then why can't angry music make you angry and that anger have you act out?

If sadness only makes you cry and happiness only makes you laugh, why would anger make you do anything but shout out loud in anger?

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.831624-RAGE-QUIT-to-the-point-of-smashing-your-controller-monitor-keyboard-TV-etc

Well here's a thread on these very forums about people acting out due to rage. You tell me.

 

[CaitSeith]

If videogames can have positives effects on certain people, why couldn't they also have negative effects?

Gamers obviously have a bias, which is why their cries are ignored.

Here's an easy example.

If Sad music can make you sad and that sadness can make you cry, and happy music can make you happy and that happiness makes you smile/laugh, then why can't angry music make you angry and that anger have you act out?

If sadness only makes you cry and happiness only makes you laugh, why would anger make you do anything but shout out loud in anger?

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.831624-RAGE-QUIT-to-the-point-of-smashing-your-controller-monitor-keyboard-TV-etc

Well here's a thread on these very forums about people acting out due to rage. You tell me.

No, you tell me then why sadness only makes you cry and happiness only makes you laugh.

 

[stroopwafel]

If videogames can have positives effects on certain people, why couldn't they also have negative effects?

Gamers obviously have a bias, which is why their cries are ignored.

Here's an easy example.

If Sad music can make you sad and that sadness can make you cry, and happy music can make you happy and that happiness makes you smile/laugh, then why can't angry music make you angry and that anger have you act out?

That last one is a stretch.

That doesn't make any sane person want to 'act out'. That is just ridiculous. It exists on a completely different plane from crazy people who commit (gun) violence. It's not like crazy needs an excuse. Crazy needs access to mental health programs or psychiatric care in an early stage and no access to guns.

Is it? Anger is an emotion is it not? Just like Sadness and Happiness. From what i can tell, normal, healthy individuals, experience anger. From what i gathered also, normal healthy individuals make poor decision while Sad, Happy or Angry. Excluding Anger seems disingenuous at best.

The problem is, people are looking at Videogames as something that WILL make you violent rather than Can make you violent.

There's a difference. And different people react in different ways to media. Some people will watch a sad movie and cry. Others will watch a sad movie, and feel comfort ( happiness) and again other will watch the same movie and feel angry.

And yet, as soon as videogames are discussed, gamers, ignore the "angry". It's hypocritical.

Videogames do not make you go out and kill people. Those who do are already predisposed to violent behavior and suggesting videogames might have some contribution to their mental illness because it made them 'angry' is both ignorant and short-sighted. Scientific studies have also proven there is zero correlation.

Maybe you have some kind of blind faith in 'authority' that you parrot antiquated politicians but stating videogames do not lead to violent behavor is not 'hypocritical' but common sense that is both logical and scientifically proven. Unlike the conservative beliefs of the elite that puts big business and their own elective interests before the safety of the public.

 

[Lufia Erim]

If videogames can have positives effects on certain people, why couldn't they also have negative effects?

Gamers obviously have a bias, which is why their cries are ignored.

Here's an easy example.

If Sad music can make you sad and that sadness can make you cry, and happy music can make you happy and that happiness makes you smile/laugh, then why can't angry music make you angry and that anger have you act out?

That last one is a stretch.

That doesn't make any sane person want to 'act out'. That is just ridiculous. It exists on a completely different plane from crazy people who commit (gun) violence. It's not like crazy needs an excuse. Crazy needs access to mental health programs or psychiatric care in an early stage and no access to guns.

Is it? Anger is an emotion is it not? Just like Sadness and Happiness. From what i can tell, normal, healthy individuals, experience anger. From what i gathered also, normal healthy individuals make poor decision while Sad, Happy or Angry. Excluding Anger seems disingenuous at best.

The problem is, people are looking at Videogames as something that WILL make you violent rather than Can make you violent.

There's a difference. And different people react in different ways to media. Some people will watch a sad movie and cry. Others will watch a sad movie, and feel comfort ( happiness) and again other will watch the same movie and feel angry.

And yet, as soon as videogames are discussed, gamers, ignore the "angry". It's hypocritical.

Videogames do not make you go out and kill people. Those who do are already predisposed to violent behavior and suggesting videogames might have some contribution to their mental illness because it made them 'angry' is both ignorant and short-sighted. Scientific studies have also proven there is zero correlation.

Maybe you have some kind of blind faith in 'authority' that you parrot antiquated politicians but stating videogames do not lead to violent behavor is not 'hypocritical' but common sense that is both logical and scientifically proven. Unlike the conservative beliefs of the elite that puts big business and their own elective interests before the safety of the public.

I never said videogames make you go out and kill. Anywhere in any of my posts. If You're going to jump to that conclusion, and not actually discuss what i did say, we are done here.

 

[Lufia Erim]

If videogames can have positives effects on certain people, why couldn't they also have negative effects?

Gamers obviously have a bias, which is why their cries are ignored.

Here's an easy example.

If Sad music can make you sad and that sadness can make you cry, and happy music can make you happy and that happiness makes you smile/laugh, then why can't angry music make you angry and that anger have you act out?

If sadness only makes you cry and happiness only makes you laugh, why would anger make you do anything but shout out loud in anger?

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.831624-RAGE-QUIT-to-the-point-of-smashing-your-controller-monitor-keyboard-TV-etc

Well here's a thread on these very forums about people acting out due to rage. You tell me.

No, you tell me then why sadness only makes you cry and happiness only makes you laugh.

Only? I never said only. I said sadness can make you cry, it's literally there in the quote. Implying that emotions influence actions. Sadness is an emotion that influence your actions. So is happiness and anger.

To suggest otherwise is foolishness. Especially when i posted a thread, from the holier-than-thou escapists showing how rage and anger affects people's actions.

 

[CaitSeith]

If videogames can have positives effects on certain people, why couldn't they also have negative effects?

Gamers obviously have a bias, which is why their cries are ignored.

Here's an easy example.

If Sad music can make you sad and that sadness can make you cry, and happy music can make you happy and that happiness makes you smile/laugh, then why can't angry music make you angry and that anger have you act out?

If sadness only makes you cry and happiness only makes you laugh, why would anger make you do anything but shout out loud in anger?

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.831624-RAGE-QUIT-to-the-point-of-smashing-your-controller-monitor-keyboard-TV-etc

Well here's a thread on these very forums about people acting out due to rage. You tell me.

No, you tell me then why sadness only makes you cry and happiness only makes you laugh.

Only? I never said only. I said sadness can make you cry, it's literally there in the quote. Implying that emotions influence actions. Sadness is an emotion that influence your actions. So is happiness and anger.

To suggest otherwise is foolishness. Especially when i posted a thread, from the holier-than-thou escapists showing how rage and anger affects people's actions.

Yeah, and your examples of actions for sadness and happiness are pretty restrained and positive (to suggest that all acts coming from them are good is foolishness), while implying that acts of anger are always negative (specially when in games you can focus your anger back to the game by its gameplay).