Assholes from Connecticu(n)t won't let the Violent Video Games BS Lis Die down after Sandy Hook,,,,,

After checking Gamepolitics.com, like I do multiple times a day, I came across this link from a shoutbox post, talking about a sandy hook recreation game and the nonsense the public figures in Conneticu(n)t are saying about it.  The article linked is viewable here. Some of this crap is really not needed now and I am here to trash it like it deserves to be.

"The perpetrator of the worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history is getting posthumous, and, many say, unwarranted recognition from the very source of his blood lust -- a video game."

So now a violent game caused sandy hook? What the hell does this writer think he is, a nonbiased source? It seems very likely that this guy is an anti-gamer and wants to make games look bad. So he posts a piece where he says that it is not an opinion, but a fact that Sandy hook was caused by video game violence, that's right, Caused, not contributed. To him there are no factors.  It's all Mass Effects fault, with all of it's nonexistent child rape scenes FAUX news tried to claim it had. Sure....

But it gets worse. folks...

 "The only positive that can possibly come from this is if the repulsive reactions that it causes serve as common ground for extreme gun-rights people to instead of pointing out how something so vile is protected under the Constitution, or looking the other way, they join the masses in condemning it," said Dave Ackert, a spokesman for the Newtown Action Alliance, a local grassroots organization supportive of gun control reform. "Same goes for the NRA leadership, all of their A-rated lawmakers, executives and board members at gun manufacturers, gaming and other entertainment companies."

So now the video game companies need to be sued, for making games that shooters did not play, such as the few thousands of games Lanza probably never touched. Are we really this moronic as a nation now? And notice how he said "other" entertainment companies should be sued. Who is this moron? It seems after "gamer triggered" tragedies like this, morons from the town in question become gamer haters and this is proof of this at it's worst.  Do we really need a massive lawsuit targeting other forms of entertainment now. Mark my words.... if This is what this guy is proposing, we don't need shit like this now, like class action lawsuits against the Mass Effect and COD manufacturers..... It's a stupid idea.  It's painfully obvious Adam lanza had SERIOUS mental illness issues. Why single out "violent" entertainment? Why? Because these people singling it out are fucking morons. Put them in jail. This 20 year long moral panic into violent games has gone on TOO long. Don't let fucktards like this bring it back into people's minds again, again, and again, and again, and again, and again. They want violent games banned, and they know if they keep prodding the issue in the ass they will eventually get it passed. We can't let this crap happen.... First crap in MA, and then More BS from Conneticu(n)t. It makes me sick.

The Anti-gamers are using fake names to spread their BS Nonsense online...

While reading gamepolitics.com, I came across the below article, talking about how the Whitehouse is not considering attacking the industry (thankfully) for the Navy Yard Shooting. So I started reading the comments, and came across one commenter who kept on spewing nonsense about violent games over and over again, and after reading his crap again I realized something. He is really not who he appears to be, in fact he is actually an anti-gaming crusader using a fake name. I won't reveal his probable real identity but gamers who know who he sounds like know how that person behaves.  Here are a few quotes from him:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/congress-video-game-violence-navy-yard-97131.html#ixzz2fZo0xKpg

"Sorry to bust your bubble but your wrong. In Paducah Kentucky, the 14 year old shooter had never fired a gun before his murder spree, except for once the day before. He played violent video games where it showed him how to aim a gun. He shot his victims with such accuracy that the only explanation is the video games taught him how to shoot so well. Look it up for your self. Not all kids that play these games end up killers, but all these killers played these violent games!"

This is one of the biggest BS claims going out there right now. That Micheal Carneal learned how to aim just from Playing Doom. There are tons of problems with this. First of all, doom at the time lacked vertical aiming. A random number generator determined how high your bullet went. You have no control over how high you shoot at all. Explain how carneal hit 3 of his targets in the head then? He couldn't have. He fired 8 individual shots with semiautomatic pistols that don't fire multiple rounds when you hold the trigger down, and hit 8 kids in the head or chest. Doom trains you to hold down the mouse button down, your gun in the game will fire multiple times. All of the guns do. Unlike anything but full auto guns in real life. After killing all the enemies in the current room you let go and rinse and repeat in the next room, etc. If Carneal trained on Doom, he would fire one round while holding down the real guns trigger and no more shots would fire, and would not be able to hit all 8 targets at all.

Another thing is that this poster claims is that lots of mass shooters played violent games. Only 4 have. Harris/Klebold, The Norway Killer, and the Navy Yard shooter. 1 News paper tried to claim Cho (V-Tech Killer) played Half-life (meaning counterstrike I think), but the neighbors of Cho said they never saw him obsess over "violent" games. Adam lanza was quoted by some plumber in a Tabloid to have played call of duty because "people who play call of duty know about realistic models of tanks and weapons from ww1-ww2" because of the posters showing Weapons and Tanks From WW1-WW2. No other proof given. To me that's proof he Did NOT played COD. James Holmes played Some RPG's (oblivion, etc), all Sword fighting games, combat wise. He killed people, with a gun. That doesn't work.  The norway shooter said he used COD to train for the massacre. That's it.  One other shooter said he played "Guitar Hero". Is that the morons definition of a "violent game" now? I guess it's because of the Heavy Metal and it's fake Satanic cult who molests kids who happen to be part of every Metal band and metal Fan worldwide... Go Figure.

"Look up the work by Col Dave Grossman. He trains our military on how to kill people. He knows what he is talking about.

"Grossman argues that the techniques used by armies to train soldiers to kill are mirrored in certain types of video games. The conclusion he draws is that playing violent video games, particularly light gun shooters of the first-person shooter-variety
(where the player holds a weapon-like game controller), train children
in the use of weapons and, more importantly, harden them emotionally to
the task of murder by simulating the killing of hundreds or thousands of
opponents in a single typical video game. Grossman uses blunt language
that draws the ire of gamers—during the heights of video game controversy,
he was interviewed on the content of his books, and repeatedly used the
term "murder simulator" to describe first-person shooter games."
As for your assertion that this has been tested... nice try. You are wrong!"

 Col Grossman was a shrink from the Military. He had NOTHING to do with training people to kill. Boot Camp does. The whole idea that violent games are used to break down the inhibition to kill is debunked by this blog, not written by some "gamer druggie", but a person who actually served in the military.  I quote his lengthy debunking below:

"Let me give you some background. I am coming out of a four-year stint in the United States Marine Corps. I spent six months in Afghanistan and two months in Iraq (crossing the Line of Departure a mere 72 hours after the word was given by the President).

While not in a combat unit, every Marine's primary job is basic rifleman. We are all considered trained enough to put steel on target when the lawful order is given.

Video games are poor training tools. For anything, really. I think the last games I learned from were Sticky Bear Math and Number Munchers.

I'm not aware of any military unit that uses video games to break down the inhibition to kill.

In fact, this breakdown really only occurs in one place: Boot camp.

Boot camp doesn't even specifically concentrate on the inhibition to kill. Rather, they follow the CIA training manual for brainwashing almost point by point, in order to instill in recruits 'instant and willing obedience to lawful orders' - that is what they do. The assumption, of course, is that these orders may be to kill; But they could be to drag a wounded child to safety, or set up a bunker in 100 degree weather, or pull night watch after being up for a 36-hour convoy.

The inhibition to kill can only be broken down by, wait for it . . . killing.

When we were parked on the outskirts of Fallujah and watched as night fell and the Iraqis came out onto the streets, even though our orders were much more liberal than the current Rules of Engagement, there was still hesitation. And this after our convoy had turned around after taking fire at the front.

When we got ambushed, it was actually unfortunate that my extensive game-playing hadn't prepared me at all for the sheer confusion, excitement, fear and horror of those moments.

If you think America's Army is anything but a half-decent game and a lame recruitment tool, you've never run an obstacle course, or been 'quarterdecked' by a DI.

If you think Halo can help you learn how to shoot, you've never tried to get ten in the black from 500 yards with the piece-of-shit M16A2, with your elbows getting ground by sand trapped in your cammies and the sun causing sweat on your forehead which drips into your eyes."

One more quote by the anti-gaming activist pretending to be a politico.com poster with a fake name:




"Trust me I hunt, competitive target shoot and have a concealed pistol permit my self. Just look at my profile pic. It's of the late great Col. Carlos Hathcock. I also play these same video games. I never blamed guns as the problem and never said all people that play these games are going to be killers. What I am saying is when you add these games without parental supervision, mentally unstable kids, etc... your going to get a few killers in the outcome."

The fact that the same anti-gaming activist has called gamers "Junior" like this guy (read the comments he has said), and has berated gamers in emails, just like this person proves they are the same person. They are virtually Identical. There is no way this guy plays violent games. If he did, he would know the BS he spreads is NOT TRUE...

I have suspected for years that anti-gaming activists have been spreading nonsense like the Hack Psychologists claims under fake names, after I read several posts by odd people quoting his claim. Now I know the truth.... It IS happening. It's quite disturbing. Why the hell groups like this allow people like this do do this kind of crap is beyond me.

 

 

I have set up a facebook group to broadcast this blogs messages and my youtube videos... Check it out!!!

Regularly, I do blog posts on this blog attacking nonsense spread about violent games. I do youtube videos once a Night during a time when I am thinking a lot about this stuff, or during a gaming related moral panic. I need a place to broadcast this stuff, hopefully to a bigger audience. That's why I created a facebook group to host this stuff, it's called "Gamers Against Moral Panics". Any and all news in this whole category will be broadcasted on this page... Check it out here... If you like what this blog posts, please like the page on facebook. Thank you...

Enjoy...

More Anti-Gamer BS surrounding Sandy Hook and proof of a coverup?

So once again the media makes up utter stupid claims to try to link Sandy Hook to Call of Duty.... Here is the stupidest of them all, that Adam Lanza when he was killing kindergarteners in the school was mimicking a "mission" or "scenario" in one of the COD games... This lovely website is spewing this shit and these idiots need to be held accountable for their utter tripe and scapegoating:

scallywagandvagabond.com/2013/02/did-adam-lanza-copy-a-scene-from-a-video-game-in-the-sandy-hook-massacre/

Number 1, there is NO scenario or mission in ANY COD games where you BUTCHER kindergartners, these games are WAR time simulators where you fight soldiers...  Not one has a scene in a school. For an idiot to blame the COD games for this and say that the shooter was "mimicking" a mission in COD is utterly stupid!!! I've heard some bad claims but this one takes the cake...

The problem is that people who have never played the games will assume this asinine BS claim is true, when it is not... It is very dangerous during these times when PA (and many other states) have recently announced plans to study "violent video game consumption" as a "risk factor" (a nonexistent one) for school shootings.... Shit like this can and will cause moral panics.... These so-called "writers" need to be stripped of their writing degrees, and thrown in jail for life, because they are no better than the fucking religious zealots who threatened to picket the marathon victim funerals...


But to make things worse, according to the site below, the Department of Social services recorded Adam Lanza's death 1 day before the shooting, opening up tons of Conspiracy theories saying that Sandy Hook was a False Flag operation to "take away our guns".... More like to take away our damn Games!!! If he did not shoot up the school, then who did? The government isn't investigating this, the media didn't even mention this claim once, just "mental illnesses", "violent games", and "gun control"... Things the government wants to change/control... they want to use military discipline (aka Military Basic Training like "treatment" to "erase mental illnesses", just look at the BS commercials for the "Total transformation" package that uses MILITARY BRAINWASHING tactics to "supposedly" erase the ODD, and other disorders, by COMMANDS... Like in the military... They also want to take away guns and ban violent games... They need an excuse, so a "mentally deranged gamer gun nut" goes out and kills a bunch of toddlers.... So now we need to ban violent games and treat mental illnesses (being a "gamer" is one of these now!) with brutal military discipline and guns need to be banned...


 scallywagandvagabond.com/2013/01/adam-lanza-said-to-have-died-a-day-before-sandy-hook-shooting-conspiracy/


But IF this claim above saying Lanza died one day before the Shooting IS true, this is PROOF the military and the government have been orchestrating "shootings" like this to pin it on guns, violent games, and mental illnesses.... When will the government "research" this? Never... it goes against their agenda.... It's idiocy at it's finest, and we are all scapegoats....

After the Marathon Bombings. More BS that we gamers are all terrorists started flying around attack sites just like BS that did the same exact thing after the sandy hook shooting on a facebook page for the Mass Effect games.... It's a shitty never-ending cycle that no one is trying to stop.... Then some crime writer goes out and purposely implies gamers are baby killers after a preacher implies gamers are child molesters.... So were terrorists too!!!! We don't need this shit all over again... It's disgusting...

Ralph nader calls gaming companies "Electronic Child Molestors". We're child molestors now. SIGH....

Reading gamepolitics.com I came across this lovely little article. Apparently Ralph Nader is jumping on the fucking stupid bandwagon started by that preacher I mentioned before in a previous article,  that violent games cause real life child molestation to cause a huge panic that will lead to them getting banned and gamers possibly put on sexual offender's registries...... I quote...

"We are in the peak of [violence in entertainment]. Television program violence? Unbelievable. Video game violence? Unprecedented, I think he should sensitize people that they should protect their children family by family from these kinds of electronic child molesters."

Electronic Child Molesters? I thought that preacher was the only moron saying this... Apparently there ARE other idiots trying to claim that Violent games actually cause child molestation. This is disgusting... There is not one shread of credible evidence, NOT ONE, to prove that violent games have caused child molestation... NOT one child molestation case with a link to violent games, not one school shooter with links to pedophilia, NOT ONE!!!! These claims are complete fabrications being pulled out of people's asses for the sole purpose to cause a moral panic. The preacher before posted his crap on youtube and millions heard. Now Nader echos this statement, a nonsense claim with no proof, whatsoever... I don't have to keep saying the industry does NOT market violent games to fucking 2 year olds, but again I will, ESA did a study that proves that the average age of gamers is 34. Thirty-fucking four..

There is absolutely no proof that video gaming companies are taking advantage of "innocent little children", who are far from innocent, breaking computers, torturing cats, throwing fits, biting random people, you name it!!!  So fucking be it... No one even cares.... But once someone even dares to claim that violent gaming industry is perpetrating pedophilia and child molestation, the nonsense will begin again.

The Oklahoma Legislation and the recent claim by Obama that he will get the CDC to investigate video game violence, will no doubt spiral out of control to mention this Bullshit claim that violent games cause child molestation. There is absolutely no excuse for this. No proof whatsoever. Then billions of anti-gaming groups will do falsified studies to "prove" that violent games cause child molestation, leading to another attempted ban on violent games and more drastic action, like putting all gamers in "brainwashing" camps to get rid of "paedophile" urges that don't exist by cruel treatment, harassment, exhaustion, electroshock therapy and even beating the "urges" out of people. Sounds like a nightmare to me... But it's what these people want!!! Mark my words!!!

I personally know 15 people who have played violent games. NONE of us have ever had the urge to molest children. NONE. Where is this crap coming from? it has to end.... I plan to oppose this by starting at least one petition on whitehouse.gov. This bullshit has gone far enough!!!

Whitehouse.gov petition on media violence... Make sure to sign!!!

There has been a whitehouse.gov "we the people" petition petitioning the Obama Admin to admit Violent games do not cause violent crimes. It's really important that people who are against this media violence scapegoating bs (gamers,etc) sign this... The petition against SOPA caused the government to get involved to block it. We also need to be vigilant here.... I would suggest all gamers and people who are against bans of violent games and the endless nonsense BS scapegoating, media lies and crappy legislation against video games like the above mentioned video game tax, to sign this.... I can't state the importance of this any more... The petition is linked here...

Comments attacking violent games on news articles, filled with BS, Surprise!!!!

For years, I have been seeing BS comments on newspaper articles that attack video games for controversial reasons such as causing school shootings, violent content, etc. Calling violent games "trash", "junk" or "garbage" is a common one I have seen thousands of times since 1999. Always being bugged by crap excuses like this and people saying crap about gamers, I committed myself to studying just how many of the comments from articles I found, could be considered inflammatory toward gamers, games, the industry, and most important, spread lies about violent games. The results were quite shocking, to say the least...
So I embarked on this study last year. The total results were from 7 parts published on my wordpress blog and the details are cited below... Part 6 is available here as well. (The first 5 out of 7 were deleted due to possible libel complaints down the road... I wanted to avoid that, but the specific comment types were recorded in another post online, but that was accidentally deleted last night)


"I am continuing my study into the nature of comments attacking violent games on articles in newspaper sites online. By definition the comments must fit these categories to be considered ‘attacking violent games’…

A) Spread lies about violent games

A2) Making up new lies about violent games .

B) Call for games to be banned outright

C) Call for games to be restricted to adults

D) Enforce negative gamer stereotypes

D2) Shows dislike, hate, or a grudge towards gamers.

E) A Bias towards gaming, such that the person commenting thinks games don’t deserve 1st amendment

protection,  the industry is marketing “trash” to my kids, etc.

F) Not sure what violence effects on kids are a restriction might be in order…

G) Attacking the ESRB due to some flawed thing like the FTC study or the fact ‘my 9 year old’ could get bulletstorm.

H) Wants violent game manufacturers sued or games boycotted.

The Previous 6 parts of the study found that, out of 77 comments, 57% were spreading lies about violent games, 31% had a clear bias towards violent games, 7% wanted violent games banned, or violent game makers sued, and 4% wanted violent games restricted to adults.

Results:

Out of all 97 comments in parts 1-7, 64 are spreading lies about violent games. That’s 65%

Out of 97 comments in parts 1-7, 26 have clear bias towards violent games, violent gaming companies, or the industry. That’s 26%

Out of 97 comments, 5 wanted violent games banned, and 5 more wanted the companies that make these game sued. that’s dropped to 5% for each.  3% wanted violent games restricted to adults.

Out of 97 comments, 7 made up totally new lies about violent games. that’s 7%. It’s small but still significant that this is happening.

Out of 97 comments, 4 enforced negative gamer stereotypes.  (4%)

Out of 97 comments,  4 showed a clear hate or dislike towards gamers. (4%).

Lies that are made up from the blue seem to be getting more popular in the last few articles. These lies are brand new, and are being spread by commenters. They are not from various news articles, or psychologists. These ones are troubling. Who would gain from complete nonsense being spread about a violent game by people who knowingly spread these lies that they know are not true? If you make up a total nonsense claim about a violent game you know you haven’t heard before, you have to know it’s a lie… Right? So who would gain?

Do anti-gamers sign up under fake names and spread more lies?

I can’t say. But these lies seem to hint at that. These aren’t the things I have heard from the so-called “experts” on media violence. These are totally new to me….  And they are false… But…  Do we really have a generation of libeling right wing anti-violent games groups hiring members to sign up with fake names to make up BS claims about violent games and post them in comments? I think we do. But I can’t prove it. But if they ARE doing this… It is VERY alarming… I will keep track of these lies that seem to be made up by commenters to see if others repeat them in other articles. I have an idea to see how many people are gullible enough to believe nonsense that is spread. More on it later…."

Now to read the worst of the comments and my response (if I responded to it in the original surveys at all):

(A certain comment, quoted from part 6)

“And it games cause violence, so be it. If a gamer tries to be violent with you, remember this one rule of thumb, so to speak. Since gamers spend a lot of time inside playing games, they are physically weak. As long as you can avoid their powerful, unnaturally strong thumbs, you should be able to subdue them.”

Pitiful. Who in the hell actually thinks that “violent gamers” should be “subdued”. Someone who hates gamers who think gamers cause school shootings, like that idiot who threatened to kill me on the newspaper forum back in 1999 after Columbine. This goes beyond a mere perpetrating anti-gamer stereotypes and goes to wanting them physically hurt. Is this a trend? First we’re bullies, and now we need to be “Subdued”. Moronic.

Source : https://www.npr.org/templates/story/storyComments.php?storyId=137660609&pageNum=1

(source story DELELTED to cover it up?)

“others are using pseudo facts to support their bias towards games in the guise of anti-censorship”.

Source : http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10430358-17.html

"games have 'passive and casual avatar rape and murder' in them"  

2 Words : Custer’s Revenge. 1989! Stop making this damn fake claim of rape simulators up… It’s idiotic. These people read biased articles that keep putting that lie in the game and everyone believes this  tripe. It’s ridiculous.

Source : The same link that was deleted above

“Remember when the cigarette companies kept saying that no one had “proven” that cigarettes CAUSE cancer? So we continued to let the ads run where all the kids could see them. Lots of people died. Has it yet been scientifically proven that cigarettes cause cancer? Do you believe they do anyway?

Here’s the future of gaming: TVs as big as your entire living room wall. Life size enemies. Realistic wireless game guns with a loud bang and a huge kick. Maybe actual gun makers will make a wireless game clip that you can pop in the real gun where the bullet clip goes. Maybe someone will make an accessory that throws fake blood all over you when you shoot a game enemy at close range.

That’s OK, because no one has scientifically proven that violent games make the players more prone to violence. Until they do, let the carnage continue! “

Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10430358-17.html

Now you can see the idiocy being spread by commenters and how many comments attacking violent games are filled with anti-gamer stereotypes, hate towards gamers, games, the industry, etc, and how much they spread complete lies, fabrications, all designed to make violent games look bad after a school shooting. Every time I heard the media using fake claims like "violent games make kids violent/aggressive", "violent games are used in the military to break down the inhibition to kill", "violent games link to real life violence is greater than cigarettes link to cancer", "Violent games are being marketed to kids", "violent games are recruitment tools", "violent games that allow you to rape and pee on people", "violent games that allow you to stalk virtual women and rape them", "violent games are training tools", etc, I always here at least 1 commenter per article respreading them, and in some of the claims, you get "special anonymous advertisers" repeatedly and maliciously advertising the book for the author who made up the "video games are being used in the military to break down the inhibition to kill" BS claim, on talk shows after Columbine, a Hack Psychologist. You also get TONS of comments, on how gamers are psychopaths, sociopaths, how gamers should be subdued, how we're "gamer shitheads", how we are "gamer druggies", how gamers are all potential school shooters, and much worse. It's a real problem, because the exact same claims made about gamers being sociopaths/potential school shooters/violent people were also made by certain anti-gaming fundies on newspapers as well, after 1 or 2 immature gamers threatened their lives.... Being a death threat victim myself from similar people to the people  who claim they are being threatened (and multiple ones claim they did, without proof of course), it makes them look like complete hypocrites, because they unknowingly (or knowingly) support people who intentionally make other peoples lives miserable on message boards just to prove "gamers get violent", as  the moron troll on the message board of a newspaper did to multiple gamers 24/7 for 3 months, and said "I have enough evidence that gamers get violent" (the responses to their death threats probably), has been swept under the rug and covered up. It's pathetic. The fact that there are people out there that think all gamers are sociopath's because of people like Eric Harris, or any other damn reason, I don't give a fuck, is sick in itself....  I know at least 10 guys who have played video games before, 5 were serious gamers, NONE were sociopaths. Maybe 1 or 2 gamers are "sociopaths" but that's just a goddamn coincidence, not proof that games take completely normal children and turn them into sociopaths... Sheesh..

Now to show off comments making complete NEW lies up, all completely false, but apparently some people besides wackos in anti-gamer right wing religious groups like to make up false claims about violent games...

“But the videos in question, which the court ruled that kids can see, allows them to virtually stalk, beat, rape, and defile virtual women in a range of perverse and degrading ways. That is purely sick”

THERE ARE NO GAMES THAT ALLOW PEOPLE TO DO THESE THINGS….

Source : http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/sex-and-the-supremes/

“It’s offensive and embarrassing the Supreme Court will afford murder in all its contexts—self-defense, revenge, military mission, zombie killer, mobster—and variety–disembowelment, decapitation, abassination, guns, chainsaws—more protection that sex.”

Most of these things aren’t even murder…… Only assassination, mobster are… The rest are either military combat, “self-defense”, or combat…. how is “zombie killer” murder? Idiots like this astound me. Especially when they bring up disembowelment, and and decapitation, which are rare in most violent games!

Source : http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/sex-and-the-supremes/

"1 comment of type A2) Making up new lies about violent games – Claims violent games as training tools to recruit military at young age, says violent games ‘permanently burn memories’ into the minds of children, blah-blah blah… Common. Back up your crap. You can’t therefore it’s a lie."

Source : http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10430358-17.html

1 Comment of type A2) Making up new lies about violent games – Claims violent games and action movies have too much things happening at once, overloading the brain, causing ‘anti-social behavior’ in kids. WTF?

Source : http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10430358-17.html

“But the videos in question, which the court ruled that kids can see, allows them to virtually stalk, beat, rape, and defile virtual women in a range of perverse and degrading ways. That is purely sick”

Source : http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/sex-and-the-supremes/

"The Commenter Claims just because he drove around for days and because of the length, he was forced to automatically do things without knowing he did them, the ‘kids that play games 18,20,24 hours a day will go into kill mode!’ Is this another hack psychologist worshipper unknowingly or knowingly advertising his best seller?"

Now they are making up utter crap about games in comments.... Some of these comments seem like something a moron in a right wing pro-censorship group would say, like the "perminantly burn memories", and "overloading the brain", and the "going into kill mode" ones...  In my honest opinion we have a bunch of pro-censorship morons both saying things like this, all completely made up to the media, especially after school shootings, and also on forums with fake names. I can't prove it, but those 3 comments are too suspicious to ignore, in light of all the very similar nonsense made up claims anti-gamers keep on making on talk shows, newspapers, etc after a school shooting. I have heard every single goddamned fake claim being made up about violent games by the anti-gamer right wing morons. I know them all by heart... These ones are new to me... What actual gain would a normal person have to actually post some claim they made up to make games look bad on a message board? None. Now what gain would a right wing anti-gaming moron from one of  those anti-gaming groups that keep spreading crap about violent games in the media, have to post something like this on forums? More people could believe the lies they post, and their claims could be spread to other forums. It all spirals out of control when one person online says one fake claim, others repost it quite quickly, everyone believes it because people today have been brainwashed to believe everything they hear.  This effect, greatly aids such right wing violent game censors, trust me it does..

This whole spread of lies is, IMHO, part of a much bigger scheme to get violent games banned for 1 reason, they offend religious right nutjobs.  There is evidence to suggest in many places that the media makes up utter crap about violent games, and the politicians believe it. But that isn't enough to get a ban to happen, because they need faked evidence to sway the supreme court, to fight against a claim of unconstitutionality. Faked evidence in the form of hoaxes were spread in April/May 1999 and in an Amicus Brief done by a right wing pro-family group, these hoaxes were cited as evidence to prove violent games make people violent.... This group has been known to recycle 2 very false claims about violent games over and over again, the claims that games have "decapitation of prostitutes" and "sodomizing victims with broomsticks". This groups claims cannot be true, because research done by me on my wordpress blog revealed how fake these 2 claims are. 

This whole thing is been engineered to create the violent game bans the censor/anti-gamers want.... The thing is that the media spreading lies and hoaxes being made by the media and others are being used to hijack the supreme court now.... You then add in justices who are for violent games through the election of a conservative christian president (like the candidate who supports a complete game ban), and what's to stop the supreme court from having a hung jury (and going back to the law that was passed before they looked at it on grounds of unconstitutionality), or even finding it constitutional via faked evidence in Amicus Briefs and 4 justices who support the idea of a violent games ban. This could happen if you add these 2 things in, the faked evidence in Amicus briefs and new justices who support bans... It's scary... Something must be done about it and the lies being spread... More on that for another article or video... Stay tuned gamers

ANOTHER Site Spreading BS about violent games... WHEN WILL IT END?

So I was browsing the net looking for a certain candidates views on violent game bans that I was writing about last week, when I  came across this lovely right wing Conservative site that is spreading utter BS about violent games to people, claiming to be a trustworthy source. Now I will add a disclaimer,  the site may not be Intentionally doing this, but many of the PRO side points are quite suspicious at best, and down right fabrications or bad misinterpretations at worst... Anyone looking at this will believe the points debunked below, because most people believe what they hear: Here is the site I am talking about.

http://videogames.procon.org/

Now on  to the debunking, shall we.. After all, this IS what I do here, debunk BS spread about violent games by ANYONE!

"97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in 2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence." Really, 97% of 12-17 year olds played video games? Shocker. Notice it said video games, not Violent ones...  It then tries to claim that this is the reason that the gaming industry made so much money. Then it immediately tried to assume this 12-17 year olds must have played  the violent ones!!! So  "10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence" Shocker!!! Let me tell you one thing. Most violent games aren't even played by such "young kids"... The target demographic is 18-35, according to the ESA. They also say that the average age of gamers are 30 years old... They even did a study proving this, unlike the article linked above, which tries to imply that 12-17 year olds are playing "violent" games. Now Let me define violent game. A game with Combat in it, and killing. Not neccisarily a Uber Violent one like GTA where you run over old ladies, or games where you decapitate people, BLAH BLAH BLAH. The media for years has been using examples of rare tastelessly violent games as a way to say most games are like this, but it's more than wrong because, according to a study I did using a wikipedia list of 605 FPS games released since 1986 on my other blog, only 4% or so were what I think most people would  consider "tastelessly" violent. That's 21 out of 605. Not even 1/10! The real number of tastelessly violent games is actually lower than this because FPS games make up only 1/5 of total violent games and tastlessly violent games, at least to me, seem quite rare... Now on to the more severe lies...

"Increasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games."

The sample size is not mentioned here, 60% of anything less than  5000 people means nothing... A lot of studies  that try  to prove this stuff use small sample sizes to make it look like it's an serious issue, and by possibly manipulating the results to show high percentages of people pre-chosen to show the result they want they can fudge the study. Recently a study was done saying that 1000 people all supported violent game legislation. 1000 people may seem like a lot to the untrained eye, but 1000 is Tiny, like in 625 times smaller than the Population of Boston, MA in 2011, 625,000 or so. So finding 1000 people who support legislation ignores the other Millions who do not. It's statistically insignificant, and the fact that such studies, more than likely pick and chose 1000 people who support it anyway, means that they should not be trusted. Not saying the study above isn't trust worthy or the one mentioned in the article but you have to learn how to critically examine such studies...



"Video games often reward players for simulating violence, and thus enhance the learning of violent behaviors. "

Most violent games don't even do this at all. Ones that do are things like GTA, Sure, and uber violent games like blood, but many games don't even make dead enemies drop items at all these days. Very few actually force players  to even kill any enemies, notable exceptions are quake 2, and serious sam type games. So much for rewarding violent behavior. Yes, killing is part of many games, but to kill, in order to survive hostile opponents trying to kill you, isn't really rewarding anything but survival. Very Few FPS games that I have played (and I have played 100's), really give you substantial rewards for killing... The whole realism thing in modern shooters (a BIG thing today) prevents significant rewards because realism requires minimal rewards per kill... A lot of these games focus on puzzles and missions to accomplish as well. Killing enemies is secondary. You can beat 90% of shooters without killing enemies. Just because killing is part of these games doesn't mean they reward "simulating violence". Also the claim that games that "reward simulation of violence" enhance the learning of violent behaviors is crazy. Most people who play violent games won't go out and kill people because they have been rewarded in a game to do so in the game, not in real life... These points mentioned completely ignore that real life violence is different than simulated violence in a game, on purpose many times, to make it look like people who play violent games will want to kill for real... 



"Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. It is common for victims in video games to disappear off screen when they are killed or for players to have multiple lives."

There is actually no real evidence to support the idea that violent games desensitize people to real life violence. Define Real life violence, then look at what desensization really means. It means that people who consume violent entertainment get more used to the violence in it. Real life violence is Completely separate from  this, Period!  There is evidence to suggest that consuming said violence entertainment, or anything really, will make a person more used to it. That's all the evidence is really saying. Saying it proves that people get used to a completely separate, different thing (real life violence), is a willful, stupid, and deceitful misinterpretation of studies that prove something different. If there is any study that says violent games desensitize people to real life violence, then I seriously doubt that it isn't flawed like all the other video game "aggression" studies being linked as proof of violent games causing real life violence by anti-gaming morons everywhere for 10 years. 

Now on to the claims that there are lots of games that have multiple lives, and disappearing characters. Where the hell did they get this from? Only Extremely KIDDIE games like Super Noah's Ark 3D have Disappearing characters that completely disappear. Only one recent game series features this, that's serious sam. Most games have corpses that NEVER disappear. Making Dissapearing characters is way to make a game seem LESS violent to kids, and is only done in KID type games to prevent the game from showing off VIOLENT DEATHS... HELLO!  And the idea that people in games have multiple lives. I can name all the popular games in FPS history that conform to this. Wolf3d, Descent Series, and Serious sam. THATS IT. Most FPS games ditched the whole lives thing because it made it too easy. The change was made in 1993 for gods sake, with Doom, which revolutionized  the idea that players who die don't get to come back without restarting the level or loading a save game. Lives in FPS games are almost non-existent.




"A 2000 FBI report (187 KB)  includes playing violent video games in a list of behaviors associated with school shootings."

Ok... So there is this study that lists risk factors for school shootings, and it listed being obsessed with violent entertainment. So a bunch of anti-gamer DickNozzles starting purposely interpreting it as proof that playing violent games is the risk factor, not being obsessed with any form of violent entertainment. Since I couldn't actually quote the study, I screenshotted it below. Lo and Behold, this proves it again. The people who made this site committed this crime.

Nowhere here does it A) Single out violent games B) Make it so simply playing them is a risk factor like the article linking to it says.  The article above is Purposely misinterpreting the facts to create a moral panic. Plain and simple.   The FBI study finds that "themes of hatried, violence, weapons and mass destruction Recur in virtually all his activities, hobbies, and past times". So simply playing violent games will make this happen? WTF! Sounds like these people who posted the article Don't know people who play violent games mostly Do NOT obsess over real life violence. The study also says "The student spends inordinate amounts of time playing games with violent themes and seems to be more interested in violent images than the game itself". Where does this equate simply playing violent games with school shootings. NOWHERE.   Then it says "On the internet the student regularly searches for web sites involving violence, weapons, and other disturbing subjects. There is evidence the student downloaded and kept material from these sites". Where does this equate playing Violent games, with school shootings? NOWHERE. It equates being Obsessed with Real violence, Hatred, And wanting to commit real violence, as a risk factor. This whole paragraph DOES NOT simply link playing violent games with school shootings. It links OBSESSION WITH VIOLENCE IN GENERAL. These people are making up BS about this.... The FBI wouldn't actually link simply playing violent games at all. They aren't pro family enough to do  that... Only right wing nutjobs who want violent games banned do that..




"Violent video games cause players to associate pleasure and happiness with the ability to cause pain in others."

Looking at  the source of this proved that it came from one of the "hack psychologists" going around on talk shows in April 1999 claiming the military uses violent games to break down the inhibition to kill, all while selling his book, a big batch of lies... If a blog run by an actual person who was in the armed forces debunks the claim, then this claim sounds suspicious as well.. I know for a fact that even though I played wolf3d for the first time at age 13, duke3d at age 16, etc, I did not "associate pleasure and happiness with the ability to cause pain in others". The whole idea that this happens, is using the same analogy as people misinterpreting desensitizing studies to prove that violent games desensitize people to real life violence, not the fake video game violence. This makes it look like games that make people want to cause pain in a virtual environment make people want to do it in real life. It's BS... Just trust me on that... If it were true, you would have a LOT more cases of gamers hurting real people. I don't see that, or any evidence that that is actually happening... So this is more than likely bunk too, IMHO.

"A 1998 study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women (165 KB) . Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape (47 KB)  such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape."

Number 1, the (probably) flawed study was done in 1998! More than 10 years ago! Number 2, since then most FPS or violent games, don't even have women to kill in them. And if they do, that's not saying they do this on purpose to single violence against women on purpose. Then the thing makes up the claim about sexual violence. Like all the other claims of "rape simulators" in violent games, this is also BS, because the last time a game actually had a scene where there was a controllable rape scene where a woman was a victim and the player was a perpetrator was, Custer's Revenge, in 1989, an ADULT only game not sold in normal stores!!!! Since then only 3 games have even had rape in them, Phantasmogoria, which features the player being raped in a cutscene, and Fear 2, which ends with the evil chick villian Alma, Raping you in arguably  the most fucked up ending any game has ever had, but get this, it is most likely a dream sequence....  Not once has there been a game that had virtual rape in it where a women was a victim, and if a guy was a victim, well, I have never heard of it. And the claim  that violent games lead to "increases in rape" came straight out of a moron Fox news put on their "bullshitting" on Bulletstorm 3 years ago, which they tried to say bulletstorm causes real life rape, with this analogy "Since Rape is a violent crime and violent games cause violence, then violent games have caused rape"... It's Fucking bullshit. The person saying this had NO proof that violent games caused real life rape, just said they did without actual evidence.



"Violent video games can train youth to be killers. The US Marine Corps licensed Doom II in 1996 to createMarine Doom in order to train soldiers. In 2002, the US Army released first-person shooter America's Army to recruit soldiers and prepare recruits for the battlefield. "

Nowhere here, did they mention that the first was a training for group tactics, and was a Modification of the game not the game itself, with HEAVY REALISTIC changes to gameplay, and graphics, almost nothing from Doom in it at all. They want to make it look like the military uses real games like Doom 2 to train soldiers to kill on, but the blog ran by the military dude linked above "design synthesis" disproved that, didn't it?  Now the thing about americas army is true, it WAS a recruitment tool. But it's the only game that ever was a recruitment tool, period. That's out of THOUSANDS of violent games, most of which aren't tastelessly violent..



"California passed a law in 2005 that would have required violent video games to include an "18" label and criminalized the sale of these games to minors. On June 27, 2011, the US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association (485 KB) that the law violated free speech rights."

What they don't say is that this law would have used a really subjective Obscenity clause like language to determine what games would be fined, by saying that games that are morbidly violent and "lack literary, scientific and educational value" are targeted for fines. This would allow them to fine any game they got offended by, period, causing many tame games to be fined, causing stores to pull any game that could be fined under the law off  the shelves, causing most violent games not to be sold in stores, causing the companies that make lesser known games go out of business at the least. That's what the BS article REFUSES to tell people...  It claims to be a trusted source on the points made by the experts...  All it is is spreading plainly debunkable lies to fuel censorship... It's stinks, like most of the polished turds that get released by the anti-gamers...