"Video games promote hatred, violence and sexism"

Wow ... I'm more impressed with the pro videogame guy. He managed to successfully fend off two other guests and a biased host.

Usually the guys they have on these shows to represent videogames look like they just crawled out of their parents basement and can't get a word in.
 
A garderner giving 'expert' opinions on gaming.

/pokes head through door

You guys need to get in there. Its friggin' hilarious.

Its like having Danni Minogue judging talent on X Factor. Some serious irony.

Not that Ive ever watched that show...
 
First statement made me lol.

"You can keep children from walking into a theater and viewing a restricted film, but you can't keep them from being in their home and putting a game on."

You can't watch restricted movies at home? I must have some cutting edge thing here. I simply call it a DVD player.
 
Why has no one considered that it's the other way around, that damaged/violent children enjoy video games, not that it causes them to be violent.
 
Emporius said:
Why has no one considered that it's the other way around, that damaged/violent children enjoy video games, not that it causes them to be violent.
Click to expand...

Because all children are perfect saints before they play video games and watch Fox news.
 
if you take video games away from kids......now thats when they become violent
 
I had to laugh at one of the comments on the Tube site, "That ****ing bitch should be hanged". Gamers, violent? Nah! :D
 
I like how the woman threw in racism as well just to round everything out.
 
They might as well just have put a big banner in the background saying 'we didnt like the airport scene in Modern Warfare 2', rather than trying to ease themselves into the central reason of the debate.

'But games arent interactive'. Like that makes a ***king bit of difference. Do you know how pumped up guys were coming out of the cinema after watching 300? They wanted to start fights, smash windows yada yada yada.

Although theres no getting round the fact that games are violent. Brutal sometimes, disgustingly so. Yeah, its wrong.

But if youre under the age limit, its your fault, not the developers, nor the publishers, not the guy in the store.

Only way to get round it is to force parents to watch the games with their kids, which isnt going to happen as they cant be arse to do it, theyd rather blame it on someone else using 'official surveys' to support their own conclusions.

OR, put a biblically strong force on the age restriction, which reaks of communism.

I also cant help but notice nobody mentioned that the vast majority of gamers are over the age limits. Theyre talking about the kids under the age limit which are the lower majority. If it was an 'adult', to keep the twats happy, who went mad with rage after playing a game and kills someone, nobody would bat an eyelid.

I wanted to scream at the gamer guy, whoever he was. He put forth a shit argument EVERY time. You need to throw facts back at people like that stupid blonde woman.
 
The only way videogames produce hatred is through the people who say stupid shit like this.
 
I can tell you I was more violent before I got into videos games, they've mellowed me out.
 
Emporius said:
Why has no one considered that it's the other way around, that damaged/violent children enjoy video games, not that it causes them to be violent.
Click to expand...

Media folk who read the studies can't tell the difference between correlation and causation.
 
I couldn't find the study the blond woman was referencing (I didn't look that hard). Did find some news stories about it though, and they hadn't monitored 130000 kids, the study is a mishmash of different studies which together had looked at 130000 people of different ages.

Did read something about video games the researcher (Craig A. Anderson, PhD) had wrote before though. Most of the things he wrote was obviously wrong or misrepresented though, so if someone had the knowledge and the time I'm sure they could tear his study apart.
 
Mr. Djees said:
I couldn't find the study the blond woman was referencing (I didn't look that hard). Did find some news stories about it though, and they hadn't monitored 130000 kids, the study is a mishmash of different studies which together had looked at 130000 people of different ages.

Did read something about video games the researcher (Craig A. Anderson, PhD) had wrote before though. Most of the things he wrote was obviously wrong or misrepresented though, so if someone had the knowledge and the time I'm sure they could tear his study apart.
Click to expand...

a eurogamer forum member addressed this:



"To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to both complain about and register my disappointment with the Alan Titchmarsh Show that was aired on Friday 19th March 2010, at 17:00. In particular, with regards to the segment about videogames.

I draw particular attention to Alan Titchmarsh's assertion that the films mentioned by Tim Ingham as examples of adult-rated movies - the Hurt Locker and Inglourious Basterds - that were governed by the BBFC rating system were completely different to videogames. This demonstrated not only an astonishing lack of knowledge by Alan Titchmarsh - as all videogames sold in the UK must be rated by the BBFC and carry a rating that exactly matches that used for movies (to avoid confusion for consumers) - but was also compounded by Alan Titchmarsh's complete lack of response to this counterpoint by Tim Ingham. I cannot for one moment entertain the notion that subjects being discussed on the show would not be researched thoroughly beforehand, so I can only imagine that either Alan Titchmarsh was informed of the ratings system that is legally required and enforced within the UK and chose to ignore it, or that ITV researchers decided to not divulge pertinent information on the topic at hand.

I would like to question the source of Julie Peasgood's study that she referenced during the programme - no details were given of who conducted it, over what period, who commissioned it and whether the study has been ratified or otherwise by any recognised institutions or other researchers of the same topic. Based on this total lack of information forthcoming about this study, its very accuracy must be called into question - however, based on Alan Titchmarsh's own comments made during this segment, I seriously doubt that anything that could have called into question the use of this study would have been allowed to be voiced, as there was a very clear agenda and obvious bias prevalent throughout, ably demonstrated by Alan Titchmarsh's own immediate comments on the study referenced by Julie Peasgood when he said to Tim Ingham "that's proven fact." Either Alan Titchmarsh is in the habit of taking comments put forth from his guests as fact without any personal knowledge of them, or he was already familiar with Craig Anderson's study (which I presume is the one Julie Peasgood was using, despite the fact that the study makes no mention of the increased 'racism' that Julie Peasgood mentioned), which then begs the question of why was Alan Titchmarsh seemingly unaware of the fact that BBFC ratings are carried on all UK-sold videogames. The only conclusions I can draw are that regardless of Alan Titchmarsh's knowledge of the subject of videogames, his personal viewpoint matched that of Julie Peasgood's to the extent that he was unwilling to recognise Tim Ingham's point about the ratings system, but perfectly at ease to reinforce Julie Peasgood's assertions about the study. This demonstrates a clear personal and editorial bias within the programme (as he either chose to believe Julie Peasgood with no supporting evidence while disbelieving Tim Ingham, or he was well aware of the facts but chose to ignore those which did not conform to his personal views), as well as apparently revealing an agenda which seeks to muddy the waters on the subject under discussion.

If Julie Peasgood is indeed referring to Craig Anderson's recently published study, then there are several issues which even a cursorily basic research would provide. Firstly, this is not a new study - Craig Anderson merely used around 130 previously-completed studies for his work. Many of these were also examined by Professors Christopher Ferguson and John Kilburn and they discovered that less than half of these studies used properly validated aggression measures and that other methods used were poorly standardised and lacking in reliability. Christopher Ferguson has also directly commented on Craig Anderson's study, stating that even with Craig Anderson applying critical and personal selection of not only the studies themselves, but individual results from within those studies (to fit in with his own predisposition to link videogames to violence), the (badly-skewed) results of Craig Anderson's study showed that increased aggression due to playing violent videogames was very weak at best and was very far from being the most important causal link. Christopher Ferguson and John Kilburn also found that the interactive nature of videogames had no greater effect on aggression within children than any other form of media - in direct contrast to Julie Peasgood's repeated claims that the interactivity of videogames made them far worse than anything else. This analysis of Craig Anderson's study calls many of the points Julie Peasgood raised into question, as well as shattering Alan Titchmarsh's statement that it was "proven fact".

If the subject under discussion had been teen-drinking, I cannot believe that the participants would have been seriously advocating the banning of all alcohol sales. There are already laws in place governing the sale of alcohol to under-18s, either directly or preventing adults buying on their behalf. It is widely accepted that parents and retailers have a shared responsibility to ensure that alcohol is not allowed to be acquired by under-18s and it is accepted that if it does occur, then those responsible for providing access should be punished. However, despite Tim Ingham's oft-repeated belief that 15- and 18-rated videogames should not be played by those under the proscribed age limits and that laws were in place to prevent this which both retailers and the videogames industry were more than willing to enforce, and that parents also had a personal responsibility in the same way they do with movies, his comments were ignored, belittled or dismissed out of hand by both Julie Peasgood and Alan Titchmarsh.

Finally, when Tim Ingham broached the subject of censorship, Alan Titchmarsh flippantly retorted by stating it was instead "common decency". During this final conversation, Alan Titchmarsh appeared to be attempting to imply that Tim Ingham's statement about censorship meant that he believed that "anything should be able to be" shown. Tim Ingham's reply in the negative to this and his assertion that videogames should be censored within the existing framework (which also governs movies and, to some extent, literature) were again ignored by Alan Titchmarsh, despite this comment taking place in a direct dialogue between himself and Tim Ingham.

Alan Titchmarsh's behaviour in this final piece, as throughout this segment, was dismissive and indicative of a man who had already made his mind up and was not only unwilling to listen to alternative points of view from someone with personal experience of the subject matter, but also actively seeking to discredit those alternate opinions (as evidenced by his baseless and illogical extension of Tim Ingham's comments about censorship into a claim of 'allowing everything', as well as the implication that by being against censorship on this matter equated to a lack of "common decency") and prevent them from being heard in a fair and open-minded environment. What compounded this was the 'tarring with the same brush' that all videogames were inherently bad; when Tim Ingham voiced his encouragement for parents to play child-friendly videogames with their children - such as LittleBigPlanet and SingStar - he was once more ignored by Alan Titchmarsh and Julie Peasgood.

This was a very poor programme which has revealed both Alan Titchmarsh and the editorial team of the show to have a clear agenda which prevented an open discussion from taking place on a very contentious subject and I demand that an apology be made to Tim Ingham for the manner in which he was treated, particularly on a subject which the 'opposing debaters' were self-confessedly ignorant of. I can only applaud Tim Ingham for maintaining his composure in the face of unrelenting bigotry from both Alan Titchmarsh and Julie Peasgood, as well as providing eloquent and relevant counter-points to a debate that was only ever going to be allowed to go one way."
Click to expand...
 
****ing retarded 'debate'.

'Tsunami of violence due to video games', **** off.
 
Sterns quote said:
If Julie Peasgood is indeed referring to Craig Anderson's recently published study, then there are several issues which even a cursorily basic research would provide. Firstly, this is not a new study - Craig Anderson merely used around 130 previously-completed studies for his work. Many of these were also examined by Professors Christopher Ferguson and John Kilburn and they discovered that less than half of these studies used properly validated aggression measures and that other methods used were poorly standardised and lacking in reliability. Christopher Ferguson has also directly commented on Craig Anderson's study, stating that even with Craig Anderson applying critical and personal selection of not only the studies themselves, but individual results from within those studies (to fit in with his own predisposition to link videogames to violence), the (badly-skewed) results of Craig Anderson's study showed that increased aggression due to playing violent videogames was very weak at best and was very far from being the most important causal link. Christopher Ferguson and John Kilburn also found that the interactive nature of videogames had no greater effect on aggression within children than any other form of media - in direct contrast to Julie Peasgood's repeated claims that the interactivity of videogames made them far worse than anything else. This analysis of Craig Anderson's study calls many of the points Julie Peasgood raised into question, as well as shattering Alan Titchmarsh's statement that it was "proven fact".
Click to expand...

From what I read from the guy, that seems about right.
 
The idiocy on show on that clip was quite painful to watch. If your looking for the study the woman mentions it's this: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/122/5/e1067. It's not actually a study rather a compilation of studies put together with some extra statistical analysis applied to make it cohesive. The study has a large selection bias, ie he only used studies which confirmed the proposition that gaming makes you violent, and even with the bias only a weak link was found.

Some of the things were said should incite ridicule. I've never understood why people try to force their opinion on things that they clearly know nothing about. It ends with the person looking like a moron every time.
 
The audience should be executed for their stupidity. No, that's not the video games talking.
 
Seriously, I had a problem with the audience more than anything. Unbelievable.

Even when he mentioned sing along games, the crowd was irate and boo'd, as if singing makes you a violent, sexist racist? Get the **** out of here, you don't deserve to live without a working brain.

Also, I wanted to smack that white bitch - she should get back in the kitchen, shut her mouth and make some sandwiches.
 
These people are ridiculous. They've seen a couple of video games with violent scenes and make the generalization that all games are bad and promote violence. That's just not the case.
 
I guarantee all of you, as soon as the gaming generation grows up and has kids, this is all going to be swept under the carpet, and there's not going to be a problem anymore, cause once a gamer, always a gamer. Chances are you will get a hold of the games before your kids do, and play it before them and make the choice yourself. Then in another decade or so there will be a new form of entertainment that comes out that all of the idiots of our generation are going to point at and say it's destroying our youth, and repeat. it's just the cycle of ignorance. I bet you can think of people you go to/went to school with, or work with that will be the same way. It's just another fad to HATE video games.

When they come out with virtual reality we're going to say that it's hurting our kids too.
 
My favourite part was right at the beginning, when he says "violent video games have been coming under fire recently."

Recently? Really?! What kind of media rock have you been hiding under you useless fearmongerer.
 
Lol, i'm still laughing at the fact that Call of Duty 2 was in the list.

(Though I think he meant MW2.)
 
VirusType2 said:
Seriously, I had a problem with the audience more than anything. Unbelievable.

Even when he mentioned sing along games, the crowd was irate and boo'd, as if singing makes you a violent, sexist racist? Get the **** out of here, you don't deserve to live without a working brain.
Click to expand...
sign-applause2.jpg
 
The debate was also very unfair. They had two guests who hate video games up against one quest who supports video games. Not only this, but the host also seemed to favor the anti-videogamer. It was 3 versus 1!
 
Tacoeaterguy said:
The debate was also very unfair. They had two guests who hate video games up against one quest who supports video games. Not only this, but the host also seemed to favor the anti-videogamer. It was 3 versus 1!
Click to expand...
Even more ridiculous is the fact that the host is a gardener and the woman made it onto TV through ads for peas, and is now the author of a sex-tip book.

Great panel of experts here.
 
Emporius said:
Even more ridiculous is the fact that the host is a gardener and the woman made it onto TV through ads for peas, and is now the author of a sex-tip book.

Great panel of experts here.
Click to expand...

Was wondering when someone was going to touch on that topic.
 
Emporius said:
sign-applause2.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the applause lights - I'm not really sure how the shows work though - maybe they only get allowed in the audience of a taped show if they sign some forms and agree to be good little lemmings. As far as I know, it's free enough. I've heard people go against the grain in audiences on David Letterman, for example.

but if that light came on while you are watching this, would you have applauded? I disagree to the point where I think they are stupid, so I wouldn't show agreement by applauding. I'd be that dude in the crowd going boooo! And then I'd never watch that show again, not that I'd heard of it until now anyway.
 
Kelvin MacKenzie? oh ffs, the former editor of The Sun? His views are never worth hearing. Just watch his appearances on BBC's 'Question Time'.

also, Titchmarsh with his own show? lolwut
 
Interactive........ I know I feel like I'm really there while 'operating' a gun with a mini joystick?!?!?!?!?!?

Damn old people, it's always the old people.
 
I also love the great divide between (some) young gamers and old people over the direction gaming is taking.

Young: "Pff, games are so CONSOLIZED now, it's all dumbed down Halo bullshit, GOD."

Old: "Oh god it's all getting so complicated in fifteen years we're going to have a TSUNAMI OF VIOLENCE inside our homes, whatever happened to the Pong?"
 
For some reason I relate WoW and EVE to the older generation of gamers.

But that could just be because everyone in my clan in WoW and everyone in my corporation back in the day was over 21 or so.

I remember our corp leader/manager or whatever the hell the heirarchy was, was 49.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Omnomnick
Behind-The-Scenes Video Highlights Valve VR Prototypes
Replies
0
Views
3K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
-smash-
Are Valve and Bad Robot Still Working Together on a New Game?
Replies
6
Views
15K
sage78
sage78
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
CptStern
Supreme Court Debates Video Game Violence
Replies
18
Views
821
Stigmata
Stigmata
Raziaar
Trouble in Terrorist Town
4 5 6
Replies
219
Views
15K
MorganFreeman911
MorganFreeman911
Back
Top