CA State Senator says gamers have 'no credibility' in violent video games debate, should 'just quiet - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39354588]Yeah, absolutely. And along his train of thought, psychologists are the only ones who can determine if rape victims are actually traumatized or not - firsthand accounts aren't [I]shit[/I] if you're scout1![/QUOTE] weren't you just saying firsthand accounts aren't [i]shit[/i] if you're speaking on a subject you know in and out and interact with every day???

I'll remember that next time it comes to vote again.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39354773]People with very clear bias on a subject shouldn't really be the ones making decisions, even if they are knowledgeable. The senator is a jackass but he's at least right in that gamers aren't the people to be making this decision, that would fall to informed psychologists and criminologists who don't have a personal stake in the issue.[/QUOTE] Except it doesn't matter at all because banning something outright which doesn't turn EVERY SINGLE GAMER into a mass murderer is stupid.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39354530]Yeah, you need a degree in psychology to have a valid opinion when it comes to video games and their relationship with violence. Who knew?[/QUOTE] Pretty much. Anecdotal doesn't count for shit. Give me some empirical data. [editline]25th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;39354588]Yeah, absolutely. And along his train of thought, psychologists are the only ones who can determine if rape victims are actually traumatized or not - firsthand accounts aren't [I]shit[/I] if you're scout1![/QUOTE] Thanks for comparing violent video games to rape although I thought that was something the strawman opposition was supposed to do? [editline]25th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;39354749]You don't need a psychology degree to figure out that violent video games do not turn people into serial killers.[/QUOTE] Uhm no shit, but the concern has always been a trend towards violence, not video games = sudden killer trainer simulator (except the crazies that believe that)

That's a rather idiotic thing to say, that those who are affected by an issue aren't allowed to debate it. Politics in general would be dreadfully messed up if that were common practice.

[QUOTE=scout1;39354807]Pretty much. Anecdotal doesn't count for shit. Give me some empirical data.[/QUOTE] How do you collect empirical data on something that is entirely anecdotal in the first place? Do you know how psychology works? [QUOTE=scout1;39354807]Thanks for comparing violent video games to rape although I thought that was something the strawman opposition was supposed to do?[/QUOTE] How is the comparison to rape invalid? Simply because you can call it a strawman argument??

[QUOTE=scout1;39354807] Uhm no shit, but the concern has always been a trend towards violence, not video games = sudden killer trainer simulator (except the crazies that believe that)[/QUOTE] There has never been a credible link made that in any way connects enjoying violent media with being violent. The same bullshit happened with movies and it was discredited and proven bullshit time and again until they finally gave up, and it will be the same case with games. Simple fact of the matter is games don't make anyone violent. They never have, they never will. People already predisposed to being violent may use them as a reason to do stupid things, but the games did not make them that way, they were brought up in an environment that fostered violent attitudes and they would be just as likely to throw punches without ever having touched a video game at all.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39354853]How do you collect empirical data on something that is entirely anecdotal in the first place? Do you know how psychology works? [/QUOTE] Increased incidence of anti-social disorders and crime amongst the population who play violent video games, etc... [QUOTE=Protocol7;39354853] How is the comparison to rape invalid? Simply because you can call it a strawman argument??[/QUOTE] Are you trying to shoot yourself in the foot? [QUOTE=TestECull;39354867]There has never been a credible link made that in any way connects enjoying violent media with being violent. The same bullshit happened with movies and it was discredited and proven bullshit time and again until they finally gave up, and it will be the same case with games. [/QUOTE] So don't give a hoot. This is one crazy senator and if/when studies continue to say the same thing you're fine. [QUOTE=TestECull;39354867] Simple fact of the matter is games don't make anyone violent. They never have, they never will. People already predisposed to being violent may use them as a reason to do stupid things, but the games did not make them that way, they were brought up in an environment that fostered violent attitudes and they would be just as likely to throw punches without ever having touched a video game at all.[/QUOTE] [citation needed]

Watch as his rating goes down

[QUOTE=scout1;39354899]Increased incidence of anti-social disorders and crime amongst the population who play violent video games, etc...[/QUOTE] Maybe it's the other way around - people with anti-social disorders are more likely to play violent video games and to some extent commit crime? [QUOTE=scout1;39354899]Are you trying to shoot yourself in the foot?[/QUOTE] I'd love to know how, if at all, I'm doing this. You've offered nothing in the way of explanations other than "guhhh rape comparison, u srs"

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39354941]Maybe it's the other way around - people with anti-social disorders are more likely to play violent video games and to some extent commit crime? [/QUOTE] This would also come out in the analysis, and if that's the case all right then. If it doesn't exacerbate the problem then status quo prevails. [QUOTE=Protocol7;39354941] I'd love to know how, if at all, I'm doing this. You've offered nothing in the way of explanations other than "guhhh rape comparison, u srs"[/QUOTE] How do you want me to respond? You seriously compared rape to violent video games. Look yourself in the mirror and make that argument.

Why does California always seem to be the source of idiots like this, such as Diane Fienstien?

[QUOTE=scout1;39354964]How do you want me to respond? You seriously compared rape to violent video games. Look yourself in the mirror and make that argument.[/QUOTE] And you said you can't have a valid opinion regarding violent video games and their relationship between violent crime if you're not a psychologist. Like a piece of paper makes someone suddenly more credible.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39354995]And you said you can't have a valid opinion regarding violent video games and their relationship between violent crime if you're not a psychologist. Like a piece of paper makes someone suddenly more credible.[/QUOTE] I guess you don't understand what the accompanying education is?

[QUOTE=dogmachines;39354376]You're right, people who know enough about a topic to talk about it with authority should just shut up and let the grown ups talk.[/QUOTE] I'm kinda hoping TB rips into this guy, but he probably won't because he apparently prefers to keep political stuff to a minimum.

This is the same guy who was arrested for shoplifting a bottle of suntan lotion: [url]http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Mug-Shot-Doesn-t-Flatter-Supervisor-3326339.php[/url]

"n-no stop preventing us from scape goating the real issues, i-idiots, q-quiet down"

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39354853]How is the comparison to rape invalid?[/QUOTE] Um, rape victims don't have any particular self-interest when it comes to telling people whether or not rape is traumatic. Gamers logically have a very good reason to say that games don't affect them, whether it's true or not, and the effects on violence require more objective analysis than asking the subject how they feel. Apples and oranges here. Like I said, the senator is a dumbass but he's not totally wrong about everything, gamers aren't the people who should have input on this. It's like asking alcoholics whether booze has negative effects, or asking a rich CEO whether graduated tax is fair. They're obviously going to be extremely biased, and even if they have firsthand experience are not experts on the subject. That's why you go to psychologists or economists or whatever '-ist' has the most relevance.

Excuse me, Senator, but have you people in your fight against the 2nd amendment also now have forgotten the first?

That's like saying Jews have no credibility when talking about the holocaust.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39355343]Um, rape victims don't have any particular self-interest when it comes to telling people whether or not rape is traumatic. Gamers logically have a very good reason to say that games don't affect them, whether it's true or not, and the effects on violence require more objective analysis than asking the subject how they feel. Apples and oranges here. Like I said, the senator is a dumbass but he's not totally wrong about everything, gamers aren't the people who should have input on this. It's like asking alcoholics whether booze has negative effects, or asking a rich CEO whether graduated tax is fair. They're obviously going to be extremely biased, and even if they have firsthand experience are not experts on the subject. That's why you go to psychologists or economists or whatever '-ist' has the most relevance.[/QUOTE] This is such a clear cut issue you really don't need to be an expert. It doesn't matter if there's a correlation between games and violence, and outright violent game ban is not justified.

[QUOTE=scout1;39355020]I guess you don't understand what the accompanying education is?[/QUOTE] And how many Senators are accredited psychologists then?

[QUOTE=catbarf;39354773]People with very clear bias on a subject shouldn't really be the ones making decisions, even if they are knowledgeable. The senator is a jackass but he's at least right in that gamers aren't the people to be making this decision, that would fall to informed psychologists and criminologists who don't have a personal stake in the issue.[/QUOTE] The thing that pisses me off is that this guy acts like he deserves more credibility than us. If we don't have credibility, politicians shouldn't either because just like us, they have no scientific formation to back their shit up and yet this guy, and many others, have tried to get games banned even though science has yet to find links. This guy is obviously biased against games, he doesn't deserve more credibility than people that are biased for games, if we should "quiet down" then so should he. As long as people with no formation can speak against games, I should have as much credibility as them in these arguments, simple as that.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39355532]This is such a clear cut issue you really don't need to be an expert. It doesn't matter if there's a correlation between games and violence, and outright violent game ban is not justified.[/QUOTE] I fully agree, and I think I said as much on the previous page, my point is only that the senator is at least correct that the input of gamers doesn't mean much. If it were a serious issue that needed serious research, you'd ask a psychologist who has conducted research on the issue and examine their data, not procure anecdotes from some random gamer who is totally not more violent due to games because he says so.

[QUOTE=scout1;39354899][citation needed][/QUOTE] Go googling for once. I don't have time to go pouring through google right now. [editline]25th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=scout1;39355020]I guess you don't understand what the accompanying education is?[/QUOTE] You don't need a college degree to have an opinion on something. [QUOTE=ironman17;39355036]I'm kinda hoping TB rips into this guy, but he probably won't because he apparently prefers to keep political stuff to a minimum.[/QUOTE] And for good reason. Nobody's subbed to him for politics, they're subbed because they either like his e-sports coverage, like watching him rant about terrible games, or perhaps like using his WTF Is vids as a handy pocket reference of indie games to check out.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39354501]It makes you wonder about the type of people we elect when they dismiss all the evidence that suggests the exact opposite of their point of view.[/QUOTE] The majority of politicians have always rejected empiricism and pragmatism for idealism, which is a shame

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39354978]Why does California always seem to be the source of idiots like this, such as Diane Fienstien?[/QUOTE] Because liberals can be just as ignorant and blind as conservatives.

leonardo da vinci's instructions on art and science are invalid now he has no credibility in those art and science are billion dollar industries made on their lust for intelligence just keep quiet leonardo

[QUOTE=catbarf;39355343]Um, rape victims don't have any particular self-interest when it comes to telling people whether or not rape is traumatic.[/QUOTE] When some people in seats of power seriously believe that if a woman didn't want to be raped, her body would shut down, yeah, they kinda unfortunately do. [QUOTE=catbarf;39355343]Like I said, the senator is a dumbass but he's not totally wrong about everything, gamers aren't the people who should have input on this. It's like asking alcoholics whether booze has negative effects,[/quote] And it's been proven that alcohol, in large quantities, can cause alcohol poisoning or over time, liver problems. [QUOTE=catbarf;39355343]or asking a rich CEO whether graduated tax is fair.[/quote] And because he's a rich CEO suddenly makes his opinion less valid? If I were a Congressman I would want to hear [I]everybody's [/I]perspective and not just those of "psychologists or economists or whatever '-ist' has the most relevance." I'm not a psychologist by any means but I think it stands to reason that the relationship between violence and video games is correlation based on the types of people violent games attract. And if you're unable to discern reality from a video game which seems to be a crux for these anti-video game people, then you have much, much bigger problems than violent video games.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39355532]This is such a clear cut issue you really don't need to be an expert. It doesn't matter if there's a correlation between games and violence, and outright violent game ban is not justified.[/QUOTE] There is a correlation between games and violence. As more games come put, violence comes down. Correlation does not imply causality, of course, but the correlation is there.