>Fun is a social construct
You can't make this shit up.
This dude's honestly more wacko than Jack god-damned Thompson.
"Fun" is literally a social construct. The Aztecs enjoyed trying to throw severed heads through hoops, niggers enjoy drawing on walls, English people enjoy kicking balls while Americans throw them. I disagree with the "political dimension" statement however, politics itself is elaborate lie designed to distract simpletons from the truth. Sometimes, things just are the way they are.
The truth about all things. There is a reality we can know and learn from and politics is the way people who want power try to distract people away from that. Don't think too hard about it, you'll only end up sad and frustrated with the world. Just go back to arguing over whether or not bombing people in a desert half the world away is a rational thing to do.
It's the usual, "if a politician or lawyer are speaking, they're lying" sentiment, which isn't untrue in the U.S. Most Politicians, regardless of side, are really only out for themselves and to make money for themselves, possibly for their associates, and do so under the guise of doing things for the people at large, with all manner of campaign promises that they don't fulfill, or only fulfill if they can somehow benefit, otherwise they're happy to screw over voters on a regular basis because 'contributors' that set them up for life after they get out of office for 'favors' while in office are their only actual concern.
_________la___li___ lu___ le___lo_________
But fun isn't a fucking social construct. It's chemicals in you brain rewarding you for relaxing and doing shit to keep yourself occupied.
It's the fucking opposite of a social construct.
fun is a biological construct to give you pleasure when you complete a task or goal
you are rewarded for meeting your biological needs
video games take advantage of this need to provide the same chemical high in a shorter time period with less effort
What I'm saying is that "politics" itself is constructed for the sole purpose of distraction. If attempts to create a narrative where nothing is true or false, morality is always grey and what some retarded majority who usually isn't composed of people who know anything about what they're voting about are correct. There's truth, and there's truth. There's debate, which seeks to come the correct conclusion through arguing principles and facts, and there's politics which attempts to cloud principles and facts and instead make the "truth" decided by nothing more than a popularity contest.
How much is truly intrinsic, and how much is socially defined? Culturally created?
Why do you like what you like? What are you -able- to like? Ask yourself these questions, and keep doing do until you get more than your first answer.
But fun in it of itself is not a social construct. What things people find fun is. Every animal has a sense of "play" which is "fun" and makes us feel "good" via chemicals in the brain. WHAT we find fun is socially constructed.
Yes, but what causes those chemicals to be released is very much dependent on social aspects.
Some things are fun for 99% of the population. Other things depend on society and culture.
Of course it ends up being about chemicals - everything does. But he's not saying that fun isn't related to what happens in the brain. He's saying that what constitutes as fun is related to social and cultural constructs.
Yet look at how different cultures form and function. The roles, what's viable, what's advantageous, and therefore, what is "fun", differs in all of them according to the needs of the organism in a given ecology.
Fun is as much acquired as it is intrinsic.
Jesus, you're a depressing fedora idiot. There isn't one objective truth. You can try and explain the world in many different ways, by class warfare, imperialism, colonialist relations, culture, etc. but there isn't this truth you are talking about.
You're just a kid in their first semester of sociology of psychology that thinks he deciphered the world with just three lectures of his teachers.
perhaps people need to meet their needs in different ways
maybe the 'currency' differs
some people enjoy shopping and buying new things
some people enjoy making things
some people enjoy exploring
these questions are becoming bigger anon
>You're just a kid in their first semester of sociology of psychology that thinks he deciphered the world with just three lectures of his teachers
Not the guy you're responding to, but read that back to yourself. As generic as it comes, how many times have you read the same thing from someone else, blanketed over anything they don't like?
Your attitude is laughable and shows a large amount of insecurity. Change that. You will feel better, and you'll say and tell yourself less dumb things in the future.
Learn to read. The activities that release those chemicals are the social construct. The fact that some people find stuff fun that others don't, is a social activity, not a biological one.
Freedom of self might be one of those needs they could never fulfill as a slave
so they'll hunger for it i guess
Most if not all social construct are based in biological needs
I'd say fun is rooted in that biology
but you're right it has to be learned to an extent
>Your attitude is laughable and shows a large amount of insecurity.
prove it. Not just say "hurr you insecure." Show me your analysis of my attitude and my life through that post.
Dude, think about it.
When you're afraid your brain releases chemicals too. But some people would be afraid going past a group of black guys and other people wouldn't.
Culture and society has a lot to say about what we feel and why.
Sure, most of us would be afraid of fire or heights, since that's basic survival. But things like being afraid of speaking openly, afraid of standing out, afraid of the future, and so on are very much dependent on who you are and how your surroundings are.
what he's basically saying here is that 'fun' isn't objective. It is conditional and shaped by your interests, your history and by your social interactions.
You faggots are so hypersenstive you turn everything into an anti-SJW crusade.
pic ironically unrelated
Everything is a result of biology. The society's we build, how we categorize people, social classes, hierarchy's, greed. our animalistic nature.
These "social constructs" are built by biology - something innate in us. That's why when some pseudo-intellectual hispter liberal goes on about how "everything is a social construct" they should be laughed at, because they aren't digging deep enough into our roots as a species that causes the constructs to really take form and happen.
I can't help but find it baffling what you people believe. How, how do you do it? How can your awareness be so skewed?
What, you really think you're walking around and just experiencing channels you were hardwired for since birth? Think back on a name for me, someone you really like, or someone you dislike. You will remember things, these associations will make you feel things. Was that programmed in from birth? Or... was it acquired...?
Branch that that thought out. See all the ways we're programmed by our culture and the stimuli and information we're around. We are created and defined by the affordances of our ecology working with the affordances of our own composition. It is that simple.
I hate to go in with insults like this, but for fuck's sake. I don't know why I read this nonsense so goddamn often. You're just pissed because he called it a "social construct", and hat term relates with stuff you don't like. So by association, you'll disagree. Because you haven't thought any of it out, and you sure as fuck haven't decoupled your biases and emotional inclinations from your judgements.
Agreed. Casuals are much worse for gaming than this stuff.
However, it's annoying that stuff like this gets attention and articles are written about it, while much bigger problems are going on.
I don't mind that some people focus on various aspects of vidya, but don't forget about the big problems staring right in our faces. But they do tend to forget them, since it's easier for everyone if nobody talks about it.
>However, it's annoying that stuff like this gets attention and articles are written about it, while much bigger problems are going on.
Of course. Outside of the Kotaku/clickbait websites, no one takes them seriously though, which is a godsend.
but all those things you mention can be boiled down to various power relations, you're saying there isn't one objective truth and then listing as proof different words for what is, at base, the same shit
Actually what he's saying is that fun isn't real and everything is political. He's saying that "the man" is holding you down and telling you what you should and shouldn't find fun. He's calling you a sheep for thinking video games should be fun.
You clearly don't know who he is.
That's pretty retarded and it's a position even a biologist would laugh at. Through human history and across the world people have gone through a ton of different forms of organizing society, including extremely different approaches to "how we categorize people, social classes, hierarchy's, and greed". Generalizing your immediate social context as human nature is being a huge retard.
>You're just pissed because he called it a "social construct", and hat term relates with stuff you don't like. So by association, you'll disagree. Because you haven't thought any of it out, and you sure as fuck haven't decoupled your biases and emotional inclinations from your judgements.
And this is how bigotry and pretty much every problem ever works.
Not really...I'd say speaking openly (afraid of being killed for not fitting into the group) afraid of standing out (same as before) and fear of the future (the unknown, sickness, death ect.) are all pretty basic and pretty obviously biologically routed. I think it'd be hard to find humans that don't express these fears to at least some degree
But he kind of has a point. Saying a video game is "fun" has no actual depth to it; why was the video game fun?
Why is it fun to mow down demons in Doom? Why is it fun to run people over in GTA? etc.
Social Construct is a buzzword used by SJW's to try to appear smart and simultaneously dismiss everything their opponents have to say.
A social construct is best defined as a social category/mechanism created by society through cultural or social practice. Essentially it is a reflection of the actions of many groups of people. But the issue here when people bring up "social constructs" is so what? Yes, so particular hierarchies are "social constructs", what's the point in that little observation. They are stating the obvious but are clearly doing it in a dismissive way so as to handwave an argument out of the picture. Anything that is a "social construct" is magically invalid and can be dismissed by these pseudo-intellectual fucktards.
However fun is not a social construct, fun is a feeling/emotion one has when you are enjoying something which largely is caused by a release of dopamine during a pleasurable activity. In no way is that a social construct, however what is defined as "acceptable" forms of fun is a social construct. Jonathan is a retard.
I like how many in the comments criticize this article.
I think he means well, and some points are good, but he just goes a bit too far.
>And my life
There again, your little attitude at work. Your life is your own problem bud, I could infer and calculate out a spectrum of possibilities, but there's no real point. We're talking about your attitude as it appears here, don't try to change the subject.
If you can't respond to someone without some variation of "you're probably just some first year psych / philosophy student who now thinks they're hot shit blah blah blah." Just read that to yourself. What a bunch of lame garbage to substitute any kind of substance. It's the classic talking down to a perceived threat to elevate and detach yourself, or "Ad hominem" as the internet tend to refer to it.
Your attitude is based around authority, but also a fear of others who might possess an ability to see through you. You'd automatically assume anyone making some kind of argument along certain lines was being educated somewhere, which also shows quite a lot about you.
It can be hard, but everything you say, given limited knowledge of the context, suggests and reflects a massive amount on you. I've gotten away from all that, and this way of thinking in general. Anyway, you can figure it out on your own from here. If you care to, you will. If you don't, you won't. That's why abstract observations from others are useful, I don't know your life nor do I claim to know any deeper or true nature of you yourself. But I know what I see from my perspective, and now you do too.
>But he kind of has a point. Saying a video game is "fun" has no actual depth to it; why was the video game fun?
That's true to an extent but the source of the quote is suspect. He wants certain things to be banned as "fun".
Censorship is unacceptable.
>I think he means well, and some points are good, but he just goes a bit too far.
No, he doesn't mean well and neither does his cadre of faggots. They are not out to improve the games industry, they are out to convert it to their political/social agenda and want to use it to indoctrinate everybody. Video games that are simply "fun" are bad to these people as they do not fall in lockstep with their agenda.
You don't understand the point of that quote. They aren't trying to make reviewers better by elaborating they are trying to get reviewers to stop focusing talking about "fun" in general. They don't want games to be games. They want games to be tools that are used to get people to believe the same things they believe.
we are experiencing things we were hardwired for since birth, and just because certain feelings are acquired, that does not make them less biologically rooted.
Taking your example, someone you really dislike. Were you hardwired from birth to dislike that particular person? No. However, you were hardwired to respond negatively to certain stimuli, including being physically harmed, having your power publicly undermined, humiliated ect. If a person causes you these feelings, you dislike them. How can you not see how these associations are biologically routed
He wants video games to have meaning and purpose to them instead of being mindless indulgences providing chemical stimulation to our evolved ape brains. That isn't wrong to have. For six console generation, Japan has held video games back with "fun" video games designed solely for "fun", while the world treated video games as a category of toys instead of the creative artistic medium that it truly is.
Its high time to take down this "fun" mentality and use video games as a tool to change lives.
>He wants video games to have meaning and purpose to them instead of being mindless indulgences providing chemical stimulation to our evolved ape brains. That isn't wrong to have. For six console generation, Japan has held video games back with "fun" video games designed solely for "fun", while the world treated video games as a category of toys instead of the creative artistic medium that it truly is.
>Its high time to take down this "fun" mentality and use video games as a tool to change lives.
No fuck off. I play games to enjoy myself, not to improve my life or anyone elses.
If he wants to do that let him put his own money on the line. Its a free market he can make his own games and see if they sell.
>afraid of being killed for not fitting into the group
But why would some think they'd be killed? It depends on your situation, it's not a biological rule. People living in North Korea aren't feeling the same about speaking openly as people living in Spain.
Yes, the fear of getting killed is similar, but why is that fear there? Are the chances of getting killed equal everywhere?
It's the same with other feelings. People will feel uncomfortable about X, but not Y, while it's opposite in other countries/whatever.
People will be disgusted when seeing or thinking about X, but not Y.
Yes, it all boils down to chemicals, but they aren't released by the same things for everyone in the world.
I've felt this way for a while. But it gets to this point: You can't really tell someone how to live their lives because they have the right to live it as they see fit as long as they're not harming anybody.
On the grander scale however, producing schlock that doesn't do anything but allow people to escape from their lives is pretty harmful.
>No fuck off. I play games to enjoy myself, not to improve my life or anyone elses.
Video games can be more than just escapism though. Just the same way books, films, and music have done.
>throwing a ball through a hall
>throwing, catching, and kicking balls
These are all things that many societies enjoy doing. I would argue that there are people from any society that could "have fun" doing these things.
This "Hospital" is just a social construct, therefore unreal.
Don't let them fool you, it's just brick and glass.
yes and no. 'Fun' is a completely objective experience yes, but there are still aspects of it which are common to many many people.
Doom was 'fun' for me because of the level design and music, gta because of consumer culture and the sandbox.
While these games won't be 'fun' for everyone it's reasonable to say something like 'if you like sandboxes or kickarse music chances are you will have a similar experience of 'fun' that I had.'
Let's say that it IS true. Even then it's not a compelling dynamic, considering it'd play such a minor role in your thought processes in enjoying something. It'd be background noise at best.
The only way this is true is for people like hyper sensitive liberals (or right wingers) to paint everything in stark political dynamics.
It isn't interesting when websites report on real problems. Kotaku published articles about how Watch_Dogs was deliberately gimped on PC, for example, but we ignored them because lol Kotaku
>Video games can be more than just escapism though. Just the same way books, films, and music have done.
And so what? We don't do that by censoring what we don't like or trying to control narrative and creation. We do that by creating ourselves.
So this guy and you can fuck yourselves with iron rods and take your spiel somewhere else.
Otherwise get off your sorry ass and make something.
he is right, but the reason for him making this point is to imply that ideas of fun most held are somehow illegitimate due to being a product of social development, and that somehow his idea of what should be present in videogames (fun or not) is somehow superior.
hes just like every 'I know best, dumb proles' commie who will then gripe because no one is interested in playing some point and click game about sexual abuse of transsexuals
I let this happen.
All these years of calling fun a buzzword has paid off.
You're not totally wrong, but he isn't saying that fun isn't about chemicals.
He's saying that "ideas of what constitutes as fun" is a social construct.
That's the step before the chemicals are released. That's part of the "acceptable fun" that you mention.
They are coming for your violent vidya now, /v/.
Not even Mario is safe.
>I'm not in any way a product of my experiences and therefore of the society I live in - I'm a special unique snowflake who's in complete control of my personality and I would be exactly who I am now no matter when or where I was born! That said, I sure do love sucking millions of cocks!
Wow OP, that was really eloquent.
he's not wrong, but trying to "politicize" video games is stupid. when will these so called activists realize that there are real problems in the world that need addressing? video games isn't one of them.
I'm not sure why you're disagreeing when we're saying the exact same things. The body is composed of a spectrum of affordances, that is, a finite number of possible experiences and reactions. But the nature of, associations, pathways leading to and perception of, etc, those underlying core capacities, and the greater whole, is acquired.
For example. I have a chronic pain condition. I can guarantee you my perception of pain is much different than yours. Pain's very nature, implication, and underlying basis is really... irrevocably altered. I can't ever go back, even though I know there are other it can be. This is a construct, it was acquired. And you know... I've even learned to have "fun" with it... because of it. There's a certain beauty to having your mind be gone, and taken over by a haze of adrenaline and disorientation. There's something in the experience of recovery that some deep part of myself gets off on, it can feel useful, and therefore, it feels good. I was not born with this. It was very much constructed via experience.
Likewise, some people have fun killing. Hunting, etc. I don't. I actually don't like any of it one bit, and it's because I was raised neutrally and not around it.
The list just goes on. What we perceive as fun is not entirely hardwired. Nothing high level and abstract is, language plays a heavy role in that. This is part of what made us so successful as a species.
Abandon thread, biotruthers inbound.
And honestly, that happens because of a socially constructed subconcious tic, example: western "gamers' find violent games "fun" because their whole life they are taught "MURDER KILL HOLOCAUST DIE FOR YOUR COUNTRY" bullshit.
The stimulus is the construct, the reaction is the biological.
A lot of "important" things should be ignored. Most problems are solved if you just wait for them to be over.
Imagine a kid before an operation playing videogames, and another one completely isolated ruminating on his head.
One will be relaxed and the other paranoid from overthinking what is about to happen. And that anxiety is completely meaningless.
Distractions have their place in society.
Yeah, I guess it's the same everywhere.
People prefer their news to be entertaining instead of informing.
And it's a shame, since vidya is a billion dollar industry and we really should be taking it more seriously.
But both press and publishers prefer it if we don't. That makes their life much easier and keeps the money rolling in.
>Implying i don't argue shit like the baseball gloves symbolize Lemonheads homosexual desires to be the catcher for everyone he meets.
Its fun to mess with people but hes looking for shit that isn't there.
>he thinks distractions prevent people from seeing the real issues
Good thing you don't run a 24/7 news network because it would bomb pretty fast. Most people do not give a shit about "problems" until they are imminent. Assuming that the possession and repurposing of the liberal arts towards a social objective is communist in thought and repressive in approach.
There's nothing wrong with millions upon millions of individuals indulging their own vices which distract them from the issues of millions upon millions of others in poverty/lacking in proper health when in fact if the millions upon millions doing the indulging actually decided to help the other millions upon millions who are impoverished would be doing a whole lot better?
Well fuck me.
It's a different approach. Anita and her SJW army are not going to tackle it via the legal system.
They're going to focus on pressuring publishers and developers themselves. And if you disagree? You're a misogynist.
>'western games blah blah blah'
uh no dipshit everyone all over the world finds these things fun. conflict is fun, especially in virtual format where no one is getting hurt
>tops it all off with pretentious bullshit
thanks for stopping by
That makes absolutely no fucking sense a tall. Is he voicing displeasure at the word "fun" because it's not directly "Intellectual"? Want alternatives? Okay.
The game itself is amusing, diverting, tantalizing, it encompasses every pore of body to pure ecstasy. My mind boggles at the graphic improvement and the juggle physics of a 2D girl.
I fully agree that video games can be more than just toys, and I support people that want to make their video game have intellectual meaning.
What I DON'T support are people telling others how to make their games. If you have a problem with a certain demographic not being represented, make a fucking game representing them.
Even worse is using influence to alter the market toward your ideals. Boosting sales through advertisement is one thing, so long as you're not fucking tied to the group being advertised at all. If you are fucking say so when you publish.
Getting your friends to pass a game through awards shows, though, is a fucking garbage thing to do, though.
>Distractions have their place in society.
Certainly. I don't doubt that in the least. We're reaching a point however where it's getting ridiculous, what with the whole gap between the wealthy and the poor widening every day, the fact that in California there are schools which only pay 5 grand per student and others that pay 25 grand and then we're expected to believe everybody has an equal chance in this country etc.
What about the fact that they showed studies where newborns with basically no life experience and teaching has shown signs of understand humor, betrayal, love, hate and justice in psychological tests?
Why does it rattle these people so much if these things may be innate in humans or even biological?
>Competitive things increase aggressive behaviors
>Things with chances to fail unless you use critical thinking increase aggressive behavior
Has he ever looked at sports fans? Video game fans are tame in comparison to that shit that causes riots WHEN PEOPLE AREN'T EVEN FUCKING PLAYING!
He is right about fun being a construct influenced by society though. He is also right about it having a political dimension.
But he is wrong about that dimension needing to have any fucking relevance.
I hate this attitude.
Why do game designers need to consider the message their games send?
They're not responsible for what people have to think. You can't fucking blame games, or TV or comics or roleplaying games, for what people think.
Take some fucking responsibility if you think it's a problem. Avoid it and forbid your kids to use it.
It's always about pointing outwards for these people, about figuring out who and what to blame.
But that's a problem too. Facebook and Twitter have made it so someone can just post about an issue to their friends and then they feel fulfilled somehow without actually doing anything.
he makes no claim of illegitimacy in this post, I think he is trying (however hamfistedly) to pass comment on the nature of 'fun' itself.
He might technically be correct in some sense, but:
1: it's not really worth debating (if you don't understand 'fun' reading a sociology paper on it won't help you) and
2: examing video games from this kind of mindset does nothing to improve games themselves or the discussion surrounding games.
>conflict is fun, especially in virtual format where no one is getting hurt
No, you're taught that by being bombarded with violence fetishization your whole fucking life.
THATS THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCT, FUCKFACE.
A well adjusted individual does not find conflict fun, that's the sign of the brainwashed or psychopathic.
The problem is that all of this means nothing. You aren't going to change jack shit because you aren't a developer. You aren't even making any tangible suggestions and reasoning other than "I want it"
What their idea of fun is different from ours.
Well i know its not a game i was just trying to be facetious friend.
Is he actually trying to say this will make people equate kissing with sneaking up and murdering someone? Or is he just being a cunt to make a clickbait article?
Think back to the last time you were in a group of people you didn't know all that well and gave an opinion which created tension in the group, possibly humiliating you or causing you to be outcast from the group. Didn't it feel pretty bad? That's what I mean. Not so much a conscious fear of 'if I say this, the regime will imprison me', but a deeper, unconscious response. Maybe this does differ depending on culture though, certainly you're right that some things do. I would imagine these sorts of responses to social situations to be pretty deeply ingrained, but maybe not.
My man. What else you listen to? Been meaning to add to my library for my runs.
no, actually. its fun because it is a game. like sport, it needs conflict. cultures from all over the world enjoy these games, not just 'western' ones (of course we have to take a stab at the west whenever possible)
>thats the social construct!
no, you silly goose. social construct is not a magical phrase that makes things go away.
Literally anything on those studies is an "agressive behavior" I've read them, and most of them couldn't find an increase in things like kicking hitting, or anything physically violent. What they refer to are things like increase in heart rate or volume of speech.
>a well adjusted individual does not find conflict fun
Since when? This is a pretty long list bud.
I'm not saying that conflict is good or moral. I'm just saying that as a species we have been engaging in conflict since time immemorial. If you think that will ever stop, or that it can be chalked up to how people spend their free time is fucking stupid.
Technically everything has an effect on the construct of society for the most part. What is his fucking point? That he and his little third wavers with their made up problems should get to decide what the construct is? Or that law/construct shouldn't exist at all?
I know the end game is obviously their "We get to make the rules." kind of nonsense. Besides the ones that are just in it for the money like him.
>My psychologist thinks that race isn't a real thing and that it's simply a social construct
>He thinks that IQ tests are racist
On the other hand
>He is anti-Israel and thinks it is an illegitimate state
Do I drop him or stick with him? I'm so conflicted.
>All of life is conflict and suffering anon. You have no argument.
I have no argument because of a baseless, sweeping rumination on the nature of life from some shitheel on pedochan. Okay duder.
>it increases aggression!
>lol silly nerds thats not the same thing as violence
okay. so whats the point of this? if my son plays too much duke nukem will he turn into an investment banker?
>There's nothing wrong with millions upon millions of individuals indulging their own vices
You're right, there isn't. Now fuck off.
>distract them from the issues of millions upon millions of others in poverty/lacking in proper health when in fact if the millions upon millions doing the indulging actually decided to help the other millions upon millions who are impoverished would be doing a whole lot better?
Consider this. If those millions upon millions of people were individuals who truly cared, would they not do something? Yes they fucking would. But they don't, meaning they don't care and no amount of shoehorning in stupid messages is going to do shit.
Either way none of that matters considering that the true way of helping people is through economic means, and by that I mean in the classic Adam Smith sense where you increase productivity thereby reducing prices/cost of living and increasing the standard of living. This is what has enriched human society more than any caremongering cause. The industrial revolution did more to help society than activists did in the entirety of human history.
>mfw retarded activists/SJWs try to talk shit about industry anywhere near me
He probably hates Israel for all the wrong reasons. "muh poor muslims din do nuffin" or something.
Drop him anyway.
You can't deny it, /v/. It's time for videogames to grow up.
>I have no argument because of a baseless, sweeping rumination on the nature of life from some shitheel on pedochan. Okay duder.
So you prove your lack of argument by resorting to name calling. Classy.
>he says this while on 4chan
Yes, yes. I'm well aware of the irony.
>go do something REAL, anon. Maybe someone will take your example and follow you ;^)
Well I'm on my way to medical school so there's that. Then probably kill myself after ten years of doctoring because it's all fruitless in the end. You can't eliminate all suffering, and a large part of life is knowing that.
'aggression' and competitiveness is what helped mankind great actually.
I just don't understand what the third waver want. Do they want vegetable people with no ambition? You can't have ambition without aggression. It's not possible.
Talk to him about the problems you go to him to and nothing else. Don't engage in such topics with SJW retards. They can still be productive people just not worthy of small talk/intelligent debates.
No, he hates them because they are hypocrites that manipulate the United States in to being their bitch. It's not just "muh muslims". He agrees that they just use the Holocaust as an excuse to commit atrocities on the same level as Hitler/Himmler.
the thing is, jack tompson mainly attacked retailers giving m rated games to young kids. this isnt a horrible thing. now we just have this idea that all games should be made for kids
>if my son plays too much duke nukem will he turn into an investment banker?
Fucking hell anon, now I just remembered that level.
I had a very clear argument, the enjoyment of violence is a social construct.
You had that pathetic attempt at making a deep statement that had no relevance to the argument at all.
Do you normally quote linken park albums during debate?
I'll list what they want
1) To become some sort of Chomsky-esque intellectual figure
2) To appear as if they are BTFOing someone in a debate
3) To conjure up problems that they then have to martyr themselves for
4) To be legitimately oppressed by something
Pretty sure people think of crime and war before video games when it comes to violence. Sure video games are violent but not all of them are. Violence is just one of the easiest forms of conflict to work with it also has more depth then alot of foundations depending on how you do.
Ambitious men are the biggest threat to social structure and government status quo today, as they always have been since they are at the forefront of any revolution
But like I said, some stuff is deeply ingrained in all of us, like group dynamics or uneasiness in dark/unknown locations or fear of death.
Other stuff is about our society, experience, etc.
The same actions will not create tension in every culture.
I think you need to take a step back and think about what triggers the emotion. Yes, we can all feel tense by fucking up in a group. But what causes the fuck-up is very much dependent on culture/group/etc.
It's not feeling fear or fun or embarrassment that's important here. It's what triggers it.
>What I DON'T support are people telling others how to make their games. If you have a problem with a certain demographic not being represented, make a fucking game representing them.
>If you have a problem with black people not getting public transportation, make your own black only bus service.
Thats what you're sounding like right now, you close minded piece of shit. These corporations that pander to Western manchildren, violent boys out of control, and Japanese pedophiles need to be stopped. And we're the only ones that can stop them by forcing these companies to stop producing derisive and offensive material in the name of "fun".
>Do you normally quote linken park albums during debate?
Who the hell is linken park?
It is perfectly relevant because conflict and reaction to it drives people to be human.
Suffering is what drives change, to move is to suffer or cause suffering as you'll eventually need to consume to refuel your biological machine shell.
the problems with these people is that they fancy themselves intellectuals who are above games like dark souls or devil may cry.
they want games that push social issues or deal with sociopolitical ideologies because they think that will push the medium into the ream of intellectualism.
they don't want games to be about challenge or gameplay.
Why my hobby? Why videogames?
Why can't normies just leave us alone. It's okay if they enjoy them, hell I don't care if they want to start making a difference in them and make their own games or do whatever. But why is it that people who claim to play videogames in one breath can refer to everyone who plays videogames as a manchild in the very next sentence. It's ridiculous.
It makes me wonder if they ever cared at all, since now they're all trumpeting that "games are dead, gamers are dead, oh woe is me" for very minor reasons.
I don't like this at all. I feel like there's someone to blame for all of this but I doubt blaming would help at this point. I guess I just have to move on to a new hobby.
But if the basics, the possible reactions, are hardwired, how can the outcome be something we are not hardwired towards? Taking pleasure in recovery, adrenaline, ect. all seem like fairly straightforward, beneficiary adaptations to me
>Removing conflict as a whole in videogames
Conflict is why we exist.
Just by merely EXISTING we are in conflict of something.
To remove conflict from the equation is to embrace the void and become dust.
SJWs are so cancerous that everything they say is ultimately the most insult shit in the world. They keeping saying social construct like everything that might influence you is a subconscious subliminal message. This is not the case things influence you because you allow them and allow them to build upon the character you have as a person. Ultimately what you allow in builds upon how you were raised and your choices afterwards most of the time.
SJWs are all white upper class hedge fund faggots so they're raised like plain vanilla their whole lives. Which is why they orchestra fake oppression to be their "character" and because nothing has every forced them to build character upon themselves they think everything isn't a choice for people 99% of the time.
>>If you have a problem with black people not getting public transportation, make your own black only bus service.
I really don't see any problem with this. As long were on this front how about we bus them straight back to africa.
Even still, I know retarded SJW's actually believe this. The difference between Rosa Parks and now is that the government was involved forcing segragation, the government is not involved in forcing video game developers to make sexy women.
>mfw retarded ignorant SJWs spout misinformed views of history anywhere near me
It's not totally wrong, but he's clearly twisting it.
Video games can create "aggressive" thoughts, in the same way as play-fencing with sticks or playing football can. It's competitive, it makes the mind work a bit like you're being boisterous.
It does NOT mean that you become a more aggressive or violent person by playing vidya, any more than you do by watching an action film or play fighting with your friends.
>You're right, there isn't.
Where do you find this reasoning, anon?
>Now fuck off.
What was the point in saying this? Do you honestly believe because you say this I'll somehow go away? Please, don't be such an imbecile.
>But they don't, meaning they don't care and no amount of shoehorning in stupid messages is going to do shit.
Yes. I know. I think a lot of people know this already. You seem to be arguing that it's okay though, which puzzles me.
> The industrial revolution did more to help society than activists did in the entirety of human history.
For the guys who owned the means of production oh hell yeah.
>the true way of helping people is through economic means, and by that I mean in the classic Adam Smith sense where you increase productivity thereby reducing prices/cost of living and increasing the standard of living
Aye, I agree. The problem now becomes a lot of the old jobs, i.e. manufacturing, are now being replaced by automations. Schools now need to push to have coding classes now so the next generation can code those automations and keep 'em running. Now factor in god knows how many schools in the United States and other countries cannot afford to have coding classes. They cannot afford it, because people are too lazy to mail to their congressman to fund the school for x reason etc.
It's exactly as you said. They're adaptations, and they're hardly natural tendencies. My life and environment caused these reactions to take place, they wouldn't happened otherwise.
I'm not saying that underlying spectrum of possible feelings is necessarily changed or expanded. I am saying what triggers them and what they are to a person can be called a social construct, to an extent. Fun is definitely something that can.
This. Conflict isn't a social construct its a construct of nature itself. Pic very related.
what? just keep on being an actual gamer and not playing 'call of modern killfighting 3: protecting freedoms and foreign oil edition' and leave the normies to their garbage entertainment.
>Why can't normies just leave us alone. It's okay if they enjoy them, hell I don't care if they want to start making a difference in them and make their own games or do whatever. But why is it that people who claim to play videogames in one breath can refer to everyone who plays videogames as a manchild in the very next sentence. It's ridiculous.
SJWs are not normies. Normies don't give a shit about politics, or if they do it's something along the lines of moderate politics.
These people are fucking extremist hipsters, not normalfags. If you look into their personal lives you will find that they are far from normal, and if anything are suffering from mental illness.
>I feel like there's someone to blame for all of this
What does this have to do with being entertained by righteous genocide?
Or teaching kids to be entertained by slaughter of other human beings?
Are you really asserting because of your perception of the human condition as some form of eternal torment, it's somehow okay it ingrain a celebration of torment, conflict and suffering in our culture?
You need to lay off the pessimist literature. You sound like some anime badguy wannabe.
Not quite a 1-1 analogy, Anon. Black people can still ride the bus. The bus might be playing fucking country music and full of white guys, but there's nobody telling the black guy to not ride the bus.
>games reflect life
Alright, so why are there billions of games about shooting and stabbing and fighting, and very very few about growing crops or raising kids? Why are there a billion CoD clones and little to no Harvest Moon clones?
>Are you really asserting because of your perception of the human condition as some form of eternal torment, it's somehow okay it ingrain a celebration of torment, conflict and suffering in our culture?
Simple questions : Do you eat?
>What does this have to do with being entertained by righteous genocide?
People don't care about people that are not them, there is no such as love you romantic idiot.
>Or teaching kids to be entertained by slaughter of other human beings?
Games teach no one anything and they should remain that way.
>For the guys who owned the means of production oh hell yeah.
Those guys still brought improvements in the lower class daily lives. For instance, silverware was mass produced very profitably and that improved everyone's lives where silverware was once something only the upper class could have. You lack an education in economics/are using shitty bait.
>manufacturing, are now being replaced by automations.
Which increases productivity and reduces costs/prices which still increases everybody's standard of living. L2Economics.
SJWs aren't normal they're weirder then non normal faggots that people on /v/ normally fall under. They're
>Make up fake problems
>Put their hands into things that don't even interest them normally for muh donations but sometimes just out of mental disorders that make them feel like they're doing good despite doing bad.
>Can't be reasoned with hence hundreds of objective videos that tear Anita down but they still hold her up like a sacred cow
>Are incapable of having a intellectual debate with someone informed and will break down into assumption insults and blocking you
>Love their hugboxes
Notice how /v/ isn't even hugbox for the opposite since everyone will shit on each other here for different tastes.
The only people who wants to shove the idea that everything is a social construct are the people who wants to be able to shape society as they see fit.
There's a dangerous correlation here with the kind of brainwashing liberalism thinks is okay to push onto kids.
That's why they go straight towards academia and spread their agenda there first. It's one of the most sinister shit you can think of.
This doesn't make any sense at all. What people find fun is so hugely varied it cannot be a social construct. Gender norms are a social construct because they are relatively static among cultures; things we enjoy are hugely individualistic.
modern liberals (in the US) are the modern evolution of the Puritans
they think and act in the exact same manner as well as complain for the same reasons, just without the excuse of religion and instead use the excuse of social justice.
its why Texan/Dixie liberals behave differently from Yankee ones, or even those in Canada
if we have videogames about cute girls doing cute things and kissing, the faggots complain
if we have videogames about a devil teenager slapping demon shit while he eats pizza, the faggots complain
if we have videogames about an average person stealing cars and shooting people, the faggots still complain
there is literally nothing that can be done. in one of those twitter images, there is a retard complaining about stepping on goombas. this is literally retarded. these idiots will only be happy when every game is either homosex 24/7 or has no gameplay like gone homo
the market doesn't want that shit. people don't want to play those games. any publisher who follows what's being asked will lose money. there's a reason games are the way they are today and it's because 1) it's what people want and consequentially 2) it sells
Because it's such an easy target.
Compare it to movies. People who matter actually care about that. There's a ton of respected reviewers/directors/actors/researchers/artists who'll jump up and defend it to the death. They can't attack something like that and get any noticeable attention.
But nobody gives a shit about vidya. The industry has very little contact with actual professionals. It's still mainly composed of fans. Nobody important will defend it - which is also why the press has gone to shit.
People just don't care. For everyone outside it's either ignored or thought of as childish toys or similar.
Also, it helps that so very much of it takes place online. There is rarely censorship, and everyone's voice is equally loud. Doesn't matter if you're an academic or an insane blogger - you get the same amount of freedom to express yourself.
This allows for every nutcase to jump in and say their piece.
But it is the same action that causes the tension.
i.e subverting or undermining the power of another, who does not take kindly to it, and may be able to leverage power over you
that's what triggers the emotion. Just because the action looks different, doesn't make it different at its core. What causes the fuck-up may look very different, but reduced to a basic level, it always amounts to the same thing
ITT worthless posts about how other people lack proper qualifications made by people who themselves lack proper qualifications and wrongly believe that this matters in the first place because they're terrible at logic and using information, or have deep emotional issues preventing them from even attempting to form their own original thoughts on a topic
"When we have a new product that has elements that we're not sure how people will respond to, what do we do as a corporation?" he asked, referring to his time as writer and game director on Call of Duty: Black Ops and Black Ops 2.
"We market it, and we market it as much as we can - so that whether people like it or not, we do all the things we can to essentially brainwash people into liking it before it actually comes out."
The forum was organised by the Atlantic Council, a think-tank where Anthony is a fellow in international security. He warned the crowd of the threat of "invasion" from within America's borders, most likely by an Islamic terrorist group, and illustrated the concept with a video that depicted, among other things, a US drone hacked by forces working from Iran and a massacre at a Las Vegas hotel.
Anthony's plea that policy-makers should learn from marketing and promotion in creative industries was linked to what he saw as a potential solution to the issue: stationing undercover US soldiers in schools, much like air marshalls on aeroplanes.
"The public won't like it, they'll think it's a police state," he said, then added, "All of these are solvable problems."
"I look at the US military and government, ironically, as having some of the very same problems as what the Call of Duty franchise has," Anthony continued. "We are both on top of our game. We are both the best in the world at what we do. We both have enemies who are trying to take us down at any possible opportunity. But the difference is, we know how to react to that."
The hugely successful Call of Duty franchise has strong ties to the real-world US military. That includes significant charitable donations, but also more divisive relationships, like working with Oliver North on Black Ops 2, a former lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps. whose military career was tarnished by the Iran Contra scandal.
>EVERYTHING IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
From where do these people come from? Are they that retarded that believe just because we can give a name to certain phenomenons they don't exist and we just came up with them from thin air?
Is endorphin a social construct? Is dopamine asocial construct?
You know what is a social construct? Their believe that they are part of the intellectual community.
Yeah, the whole thing about how "fun is a social construct" isn't a comment that will go anywhere anyway because there are already games about the things they want games to be about and they don't sell as well as the other ones.
Bitching on twitter isn't going to change that because as much as they browbeat developers and publisher PR agents, they can't browbeat mainstream commercial success.
>Simple questions : Do you eat?
Yeah, and I realize I am eating other life, but I don't fucking celebrate it, or have the gall to imply it's anything but a necessity of survival.
>people don't care about people that are not them, there is no such as love you romantic idiot.
Bringing that pessimism and overarching sociopath mindset back into the fray, I see. so I'll fix a bug in your statement.
>BAD people don't care about people that are not them, wake me up (inside)
>Games teach no one anything and they should remain that way.
This implication that we never ever pick up political or psychological effects from media is ignorance: the statement. Done with you.
>So how did one type of natural human struggle make it to the AAA leagues, but the other type of natural human struggle is obscure games that bore the majority?
Because it doesn't make them feel powerful you slackjawed nitwit. Power is the ultimate human drug and the most expensive to obtain and maintain.
You people are so goddamn stupid it isn't even funny.
It isn't killing people that makes the game fun, its feeling powerful and having direction.
You people shoot at a target and miss by 2 miles every time.
its because Communism offers great criticism but nothing in the way of functional solutions, just as these people do.
their 'answers' to these problems are always unworkable nonsense wrapped to much in idealism to ever be applicable in reality.
>Which increases productivity and reduces costs/prices
I do not deny this.
>which still increases everybody's standard of living
Barely. Still 52 million people in the United States who live from check to check.
>Those guys still brought improvements in the lower class daily lives. For instance, silverware was mass produced very profitably and that improved everyone's lives where silverware was once something only the upper class could have
>You lack an education in economics
I do not deny this. I'm just trying to discuss things anon I'm not baiting anything. If you don't wanna continue it's fine I guess most of this discussion between you and I right now has to do with the fact that I don't know how to deal with there will always be suffering. But you don't/shouldn't care about that. Let's just drop it.
All of the words he suggests are even more complexified and vague. At least if someone says they're having fun, we sort of know what they're saying. We don't know the specifics, but they mostly don't either, since our personality is ultimately something opaque and mysterious to us. If someone told me that they were or felt pro-social or whatever I would have no clue what to think at all (besides the typical pile of unexamined biases surrounding the so-called social, which are all far more abstract than the simple designation of 'fun'). 'Healing' isn't bogged down with unexamined biases?
And "fun" isn't an ideal, it's a feeling. All conceptions or ideals of fun are basically roadmaps that try and point to where/what/when/why that feeling comes out to play, a roadmap we craft because fun is good, and everything good is fun, and we are simply compelled towards it by the fire within, the end. If a conception or ideal fails to serve two people, it's because one individual is simply different in some way from the next in that case. But this doesn't mean we're all totally utterly fragmented with no common ground, obviously. In this case, you just do best when you either craft or inherit a conception of fun (which you do no matter what) that truly suits your own tastes. Trying to turn your back on the entire concept (which is typically far more concrete and useful than whatever "pro-social" designates) just because it's become an "unexamined bias", "trick" or "meaningless ideal" for so many people is just dumb.
>mfw I'm making a violent videogame
>mfw NOTHING this cunt says will stop me
I'm motivated to make it, in the chance that one day he'll complain about it.
At this point you have to wonder since their shit is integrated with Digra if they're even a couple. Its just extra convenient for them to move around to do this shit i bet. You never see any tweets between them or anything to prove its a relationship rather then their simple world. SJWs are also extremely shallow individuals who will post anything to make themselves feel special so it also surprises me we haven't seen shit.
It's not a matter of being triggered. Academia is a huge fucking pyramid scheme of liberalism who intends to shape society the way they see fit. They even fucking acknowledge it openly. They know they own the scene.
Or maybe... just maybe here.
Maybe videogames are made for a myriad of different reasons and pinning it to "Patriarchial constructs" is equally as stupid as saying "they mimic real life" and other bullshit.
Maybe people play videogames and desire them for more than just one reason. Maybe they like challenges, intriguing stories, relaxing task completion, friendly cooperation, and grand spectacles. Perhaps people play them both to escape and as a relieving hobby or modicum of challenge. I mean, this should be fucking simple right. Everyone should already know that life is incredibly short and a large chunk of it is already eaten up (for most people) by education/work/ home maintenance/ necessary labor/ whatever. And that trying to regulate HOW someone spends what little free time they have is pretty fucking cruel.
Of course noone could EVER be stupid enough to think that one form of entertaining oneself should be changed because "It promotes aggression." How fucking stupid can you be. Slaving away countless hours every day for 40+ years of your life and having close to or half of your money sucked up by Insurance/gubmint/ rent before you even see a fucking PENNY to buy groceries. And knowing that you have to deal with that shit for the rest of your life doesn't increase aggression. But OH GOD SOMEONE KILLED A GUY IN DOOM SOUND THE FUCKING ALARMS THOSE MANCHILDREN ARE FOAMING AT THE MOUTH WE MUST STOP THEIR FUN IMMEDIATELY.
One free Ebola, plz go to Texas to pick your prize.
But there's all sorts of power. If you know how to run a farm and nobody else does, you've got the power. Like this guy says:
Such games do exist and some people like them, so how does one get more popular than the other?
>>BAD people don't care about people that are not them,
Wrong jackass. You are a "BAD" person. Know why? You want to change games for your personal benefit and to your tastes at the cost of other people.
So guess what? You ain't so lily white after all you pigfucker.
>Barely. Still 52 million people in the United States who live from check to check.
Many of whom are using technology that has greatly advanced their standard of living compared to people living in the 1800's. I think having a cellphone is a great advancement, and being able to sanitize your utensils/house would be another advancement. The fact that we aren't living in our own shit anymore is a huge step for us.
>I don't know how to deal with there will always be suffering
It will always be there, just remember that technological and economic advancement help to alleviate and stop that suffering. We have less suffering now than we did 200 years ago.
>Going to be stabbing human type enemies in the head in The Evil Within come tuesday
>Going to blow peoples torsos to pieces
>Will go to work the next day and not be compelled to hurt anyone even if its a stressful as fuck day.
Video games sure effect people like these cunts say yup yup. Also same with Ninja Gaiden 2 the most violent game i've ever played.
>DUH DAYM LIBRULS WANNA MAKE ME INTO ONE A DEM HOMOS WITH DERE BOOK LEANRINS, WCHA FUCK YOU MEAN I SHOULD HAVA SHRED OF SYMPATHERS, THATS NIGGERKIKES TALKIN
This is /literally/ you.
This is what people mean when they say non-STEM majors are retarded. If you allow these people even an ounce of self-respect, they start thinking they're fucking experts on the human condition.
If you went to college for four years to learn about literature or "sociology" or whatever, you are WORTHLESS. You have zero actual knowledge, and are less likely to make a true statement about your own field than someone with no education whatsoever. No exceptions.
im always amazed how 'strawman' gets thrown into every debate these days, and there are still people that will bring out a greentext strawman as if its going to make them look any better
No that was literally you, because if it was literally him then you wouldn't have been posting it, he would have been posting.
I know 'liberals' are the defacto 'good guys' of society but you are extremely naive if you think they don't play hardball with politics just the same as any radical right winger. It's all the fucking same. Keep making petty baby insults. You are just being naive on purpose.
My ideal future
>Kids won't be taught to murder waves of "THE BAD GUYS" for jollies.
Quelle Horreur. Total SOCJUS dystopian orwellesque vision there. Kids aren't being taught to kill at age 10.
That the politician's job is to balance competing and conflicting interests over time such that people are sufficiently happy (or, rather, not sufficiently unhappy) enough to start going around killing others. You're never going to get everything you want, ever. You get what you can while you can (from others) and you appease your neighbors with the handouts you yourself can scrounge up, and then everyone tries not to die and watches tv and fucks occasionally.
That is literally life on this planet.
It's even worse when these soft sciences most of the time do not require you to present hard evidence of your claims, so any nigger has a voice and is allowed to have an opinion.
So every time this niggers clash with hard sciences they cry that they are being oppressed because they are required to present hard evidence of their claims.
>Quelle Horreur. Total SOCJUS dystopian orwellesque vision there. Kids aren't being taught to kill at age 10.
Taught to kill. Good golly gosh. Have you ever even played a video game? I mean seriously.
Guitar Hero doesn't even teach you to play fucking guitar.
You don't need culture or more than one person to have fun, so fun is definitely not a social or cultural construct.
Fun is the state of being euphoric in an energetic fashion. That is a real thing and not a construct, even if it can't be easily measured.
There sadly isn't much you can do. The masses as a whole are very vulnerable to people who can pretend to sound smart and be completely retarded. People can be stupid enough to believe a moron wording himself to sound smart over a educated person with average vocabulary and presentation.
>Although now I fear I may have mistaken my career path and should've become an engineer instead of a doc.
Doctors play a valuable role in society, although it is actually cheaper/more profitable now to become an engineer due largely to the fact that there is a tight control on medical school.
>You have zero actual knowledge
I would blame this focus on physical application of knowledge as the main reason why liberal arts has decayed to this point
things like sociology and literature as you said attract these people because university is no longer a prestigious institution and has been changed to follow an assembly line system like high school rather than valuing Socratic teaching methods which focus more on teaching people abstract thought and how to think independently rather than what to think.
we are in a new age of Sophistry and STEMfags are as much a problem as liberal fart majors today
>Kids won't be taught to murder waves of "THE BAD GUYS" for jollies.
Oh my god this is the best fucking thing. Please, do more. Hurry up and tear apart the left wing Tea Party style. Tell us more about how videogames train killers.
Yeah, but again you're jumping right to the feeling itself.
Let's say I tell a racist joke in a group of people. Everyone laughs, because I'm funny as hell.
Let's say I tell the exact same joke but it falls flat.
Nobody knows me, they don't know if I'm serious. Everyone looks away and talks about something else, because I'm too dumb to read the mood.
Let's say I tell the exact same joke, turn around and realize an Indian guy was in the group - and wouldn't you know it, the joke was very rude to Indians.
Everyone frowns at me and thinks I'm a bastard. OR, they know the Indian guy is relaxed and he laughs the loudest, so everyone feels relaxed and laughs at me for fucking up and because the tension lifted.
Any one of these situations are fully dependent on the people there, our relations, the group dynamics, etc.
Yes, you can say that we laugh because it's fun, but WHY is it fun? Everyone got tense because a problem occurred in the group, but WHY did it occur?
Everyone can feel tense. And we can categorize that feeling in overall situations: "Tense about group dynamics." "Tense about a challenge". "Tense about a conflict".
And we're all capable of feeling tense for these, and many other, reasons.
But the things that trigger these situations aren't the same for everyone. Telling that joke wouldn't always result in the same situation - once it's told it's up to the surroundings what situation triggers. We might all feel "fun because of X", but that isn't certain.
That's because there's no such thing as a proof for the kinds of things that they study that is feasible to produce within a lifetime. Instead, you test your theory across wide swaths of the population and determine if the results you get are statistically-significant and if that degree of significance warrants the merit of attention in the context of all the other things we "know" to a greater or lesser extent.
Please try not to be a STEM dildo and understand this.
>when in fact if the millions upon millions doing the indulging actually decided to help the other millions upon millions who are impoverished would be doing a whole lot better?
oh yeah? prove it.
>You have zero actual knowledge
But have you noticed how nobody the public never question these people?
Everyone thinks they know more than a doctor and call physicist retards because obviously pluto is a planet but these people are free to say bullshit and everyone eat its without question.
Like this shit is backwards.
Everyone only ever means well, but only for themselves and their people, and it could never be any other way. Humanitarianism is sort of like, drumming up an imaginary relationship with the worlds victims. All victims are "their people", in that sense, so they're in the same boat as everyone ever, but they "mean well" in a sort of impoverished, absurd way. The difference is that their whole conquest for realising egalitarian ideals is fuelled by stupid, resentful energy, and not a love of life. This is the secret of the SJWs.
SJWs resent all power relations, especially as far as they disrupt some sort of crystallization and maintenance of a specific form of social relations that would serve "their people", even though this is all a power relation in itself engineered to carry "their people" to victory, but their ideals are so fluffy they don't and never will point to some actually occurring reality, only more and more distorted sci-fi novel bullshit. See: Harrison Bergeron
So, being a Sociologist is nothing but giving surveys and doing basic high school statistics? Why do we need "Sociologists" then? Engineers are provably 1-2 standard deviations smarter on average, and could certainly do a better job. They won't be biased by lies about "Patriarchy", either.
If you think CoD or any of the popular testosterone manshoots these days are anything but Instruction Manuel's In Merciless Slaughter then you have a screw loose.
Is a kid going to learn how to operate an assault weapon? No.
Is the kid going to learn that mass death and murder is justified as long as it's the faceless foreign Bad Guy of the week? Yeah.
Is the kid going to lose appreciation for life and creation, and instead gain a fixation of death and destruction? Yeah.
Do these games glorify the taking of life? Fuck yes. K/D, points, Killsteaks. All telling little Johnny Everyboy that being good at killing gets rewarded.
The writing is on the wall, you've got your fingers in your ears and your eyes shut.
It seriously stunted them.
But I think it'd be great if that happened to vidya.
Let the big American titles turn to shit and watch the European and Asian developers flourish.
The sales would plummet for American games and people would see that the people clamoring for this shit aren't gonna buy the games either way.
The issue is he's 'sort of right', but not. I know what he means by it, but Fun is a social and cultural construct. Cultures have different forms of what they consider fun and for passing the time via entertainment.
If you gave a bushman a Video game and showed him how to play it, it's likely he might not have fun at all. Even if it was the best game ever by our standards.
>Letting your kids play games which obviously would be inappropiate
>Not helping them understand the difference between real life and media
>Not providing context
>Even thinking media alone can cause a change in behaviour
Seriously, media can shine a light on new ideas and views, but whether a person follows them is completely up to themselves.
Which is I get very wary about this sort of thing
Its mainly because ignorance isn't stupidity but a far more powerful version. People hear something they don't understand and are told if they maybe argue against it or try and become informed they're bad sexist and racist. People are informed on doctors and physicists because they don't bash you for becoming informed on all sides.
A doctor won't call you evil for looking up how vitamins can be more powerful for handling some sorts of disease then generic brands of medicine and such.
>But have you noticed how nobody the public never question these people?
It's funny because this is one of the shit sociology teaches you. And here you are decrying it. Unless I'm totally misreading this or something in which case feel free to call me an asshole.
>Is the kid going to learn that mass death and murder is justified as long as it's the faceless foreign Bad Guy of the week? Yeah.
>Is the kid going to lose appreciation for life and creation, and instead gain a fixation of death and destruction? Yeah.
>Do these games glorify the taking of life? Fuck yes. K/D, points, Killsteaks. All telling little Johnny Everyboy that being good at killing gets rewarded.
>The writing is on the wall, you've got your fingers in your ears and your eyes shut.
I can't even tell if you're trolling anymore. Its too much. Too much. I'm laughing so hard.
I can't go on.
People naturally on average have a desperate reason to be right. Something that shames the minority of those who argue against it is easier to agree with and be ignorant then informed and hated.
Also the problem with SJWs is the only people that care are the 2 sides. Be it video games , literature , or movies. The masses who just don't care won't get involved. SJWs are very fucking manipulative people as you have seen they aren't stupid the ones that head the shit that is. They're bad people who will squeeze into positions of authority so they can further shit on those who argue against them rude or civil.
>Yes, you can say that we laugh because it's fun, but WHY is it fun? Everyone got tense because a problem occurred in the group, but WHY did it occur?
The 'why' lies in the power dynamic of the group. In the first instance, nobodies power is threatened. Everyone knows you, they feel okay, so they laugh, no tension. In the second, everyone feels their power vaguely threatened, they know this could potentially be a bad situation, they side with caution and stay out of it. In the third, someone's power in the group has been directly violated. How they reacted to this structures the reaction of the rest of the group.
What the cultural backdrop is, what the surroundings are, are perfectly interchangeable. What matters is the dynamic of power within the group and the perception of it. That's not the feeling itself, its what structures the feeling.
>ebola runs rampant across U.S. because of multi-culturalism bringing in africans
>giant student loans bubble and job crisis because "everyone needs a college degree"
>every source of media, from tv to video games, must now occupy some kind of arbitrary political spectrum
>most gender inequality we've seen in 200 years thanks to misandry in the judicial system
Please kill all the liberals
>A well adjusted individual does not find conflict fun,
It's cute that
A.) The implication here is that you deluded yourself into thinking that you are a "well adjusted individual"
B.) Finding virtual conflict fun is the same as finding real-life conflict fun
>Do surveys/actually measure shit
>Do complex statistical analyses that would make the average high schooler break down into giant sobs of despair
>INTERPRET the results within the broader context of existing scientific, historical, and social knowledge
So, no, engineers are too autistic to do that last part. You need someone who can pass English class, because otherwise you have a ton of data that you can't make any meaning of because they guy you've assigned to it can't reason his way to a conclusion if his life depended on it.
Its pretty funny because strip away the profound pretentious faggot presentation of this guys tweets and you have the least profound person. SJWs are so good at dressing up their words for the willfully ignorant to eat up. I bet this faggot was drinking at starbucks when he tweeted that shit also.
I'm making a cyberpunk game where you fry the brains of a fatass crazy feminist and a filthy furry, among other bizarre cyberspace warriors.
I really hope some of those SJW complain about it just to get free advertising.
Best thing is that I plan to make it 100% free.
Another day. Another tweet. More pretentious bullshit.
Everything always seems to have a political dimension because these fucks try to make everything have a political slant to it. It seems like they'll latch onto anything that fits their agenda.
This is the reason videogames and board games can never be art. All games are for fun. Fun is in our biology, in all living creatures in fact. The ability to appreciate art is not.
I'm on the defensive; he started out by attacking the soft sciences. If I knocked him down a peg in the process, then now we're equal.
The fact that you can't into this is the reason why this shit is such a huge problem. You assholes keep resetting the window of perception to make it look like you're unjustly persecuted for being too smart.
How to fix all of this
>Someone has ebola.
Kill them and dispose of the body in a underground furnace.
>Giant student loans and job crisis
Elect a president who won't lie about unemployment percentages and will actually do shit. Also lower stupid college requirements for basic jobs.
>Political effect on media
Tell creators its just fucking whining and they can't actually legally do fucking anything to them.
>Most gender inequality
Kill every third waver.
Data is abstract, by definition abstractions must be contextualized for them to have any bearing on physical reality.
>No you fucking dingbat. You don't interpret data, data speaks for itself you yokel.
...What? If you take things at face value you don't learn near as much nor do you find answers to questions that you otherwise wouldn't have thought to ask.
YOU WANT FLIP BURGER YOU HAVE ENGINEER DEGREE FROM BIG COLLEGE
YOU WANT SURVIVE AND HAVE POCKET COIN YOU GET 3 FAST FOOD JOB YES YES YES
YOU WANT FUN NO YOU GET NO FUN ONLY EQUALITY NO MAKE SENSE STILL DO IT
YOU WANT NO EBOLA TOO BAD I GIVE YOU EBOLA THANK YOU BLACK PRESIDENT MAN
You know why they are called "soft sciences" you stupid git?
because you have to be "soft" to think the dumb bullshit being spewed at you is "science"
stay butthurt at the real stem boys though you colossal faggot. You'll be recombining just how much white privilege white people have as me and my mates are actually developing advanced materials.
>How are adults able to have fun reading a book?
I don't know if you've been around many infants, but they love books, despite not being able to read them.
But, for a more serious answer - because they have the necessary intellect and knowledge to properly enjoy the activity. It's not because of pressure from societal memes. I bet if you were to find some isolated, primitive tribe, and taught them how to read, they'd be fascinated by it, and come to enjoy it, despite the activity having no significance in their culture.
And how can you even begin to insinuate that something is a construct if intrinsic factors exist? Society has some influence over what we find fun, doubtless, if only on a level of what sorts of activities we are introduced to. But that's a world of difference from making the outrageous claim that fun is a social construct. Fun has existed far longer than society.
He's sort of right in the way the statement is correct, but the underlying message I get from that is 'Therefore what (we consider) are the wrong ideas can be changed into what we want, and it is alright to do this'
The 'political dimension' is bull though, and I'm not seeing how it links to the idea of a social construct.( And trying to explain how our ideas of fun are constructed and how they differ rely on so many factors its pointless to start explaining in this thread.)
Any gamers who grew up in the 80s and 90s?
There were barely any major censors aside from the Mortal Kombat and Doom scare and kids ran amok playing all sorts of sexual and violent games back then and people didn't become monsters. There has been decades of precedence here and yet we are having this discussion now? Why?
>OP posts inflammatory tweet
>/v/ collectively shits itself in outrage and stokes the flames of equally extremist views
How much mental energy have you wasted on all this outrage? Get a life.
>Data is abstract, by definition abstractions must be contextualized for them to have any bearing on physical reality.
Depends on your definition of interpretation. And I assure you his is not the same as yours.
He will attempt to apply bias and perspective through a "social" window to it.
I want my data with a little bias as possible thank you very much.
And some situations will create the same feeling in 99% of all people (so it's mostly based on biology) and other situations will create different feelings in different people, depending on the culture/surroundings/etc (so it's mostly based on cultural and social structures).
Again, you seem to jump right to what happens and not why it happens.
>someone's power in the group has been directly violated
Or perhaps it hasn't. THAT is the main thing, THAT is the core. At that point various feelings could occur, but it's not up to biology at this point, not quite yet. First we have to go through the sociological and cultural shit, first we have to see how the situation turns out - THEN we get to say "He feels X because of Y". But why Y happened isn't about biology.
You can say that Indians react in disgust to people eating cows because they feel their religion, their personal belief that they've invested faith and time into, their safety net, is being violated.
But the reason they feel that is because their culture is different. The feel disgust because of their belief, not because that "eating cows is disgusting" is ingrained in us.
You're twelve if you don't think a 100% fatal disease/virus with no cure doesn't warrant disposal of the host on site. People like you are the reason its spreading. There is a point where it isn't inhumane to do so.
>exceptional people are the rule
good going dipshit