Except you didn't criticize the paper. You called it out merely for the journal it is in and your unproven claim that psychologists agree video games are linked to violence just because of a 2005 APA policy statement. (Note: there is not this substantial consensus you claim and furthermore these experiments are not getting repeated. Primarily because other psychologists want to do their own studies in order to be published).

For proof of a lack of real consensus, here's an open letter to the APA, including a large number of leading psychologists, who are asking for that policy statement to be revisited due to new evidence; both for new studies and the insufficiency of old studies.
http://www.christopherjferguson.com/APA%20Task%20Force%20Comment1.pdf
And here is the APA response...
http://www.apa.org/pi/families/violent-media.aspx
Does not the fact that a new task force is approved at least lend credence to dispute your claim?

Additionally, here's a study showing specifically how psychological data is not as statistically accurate as claimed...
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/11/1359.full.pdf

Edit: And note I'm claiming there is no smoking gun. You are the one claiming it is 100% established there is a causal link. You thus have the burden of proof for your extravagant claim...

Hey, is there anything new or relevant thigns? Any progress? I read an interview with Juyi Nakajima. I can barelly understand what he said, since English is not his first language and his English grammar is not very developed, but I got his main points and I agree with him on everything.

http://www.meinoskaen.me/gamergate-interviews-yuji-nakajima/

Also, I regret nothing about using the term retard, why should I? Because it offends someone? If you check history you will find out that idiot, stupid, cretin, and many other terms used to insult people with low intellect are actually terms used to reffer to different levels of mental retardation in the past. If we were to police and censor speech based on who it might offend or what group it refers to we would end up removind or editing out most words from the cultural dictionary.

The last two big things I know of are, in reverse order, Anita and McIntosh going after the Witcher 3 and Ian Miles Cheung changing his opinion on social justice advocacy. That and some study of raw Tweets which seems to indicate Gamergate is in fact concerned with game journalist ethics as those are the retweeted tweets of the movement.

As far as I know. Our main concerns are ethical journalism and artistic freedom. ONce those two things are achieved we are done with this.

Yep. ^This exactly. We're still waiting for Airplay in August to see how that goes.

For those not in the know or don't remember, there is going to be a debate that's going to be live and online in August this year with the SPJ. They want for GamerGate, Neutrals, and "AGG" to be present and say what they can. The group for GG has pretty much been decided at this point but nothing is said that I can see about AGG.

I forgot about that. My guess is Sarkeesian could be the spokeperson for AGG. She is the one with more reach and seh is always on the spotlight.

But she won't. She never debates anyone. She'll give speeches telling only her side but even her Twitter or YouTube, opposition is blocked. Brianna might do it though. She at least has done interviews with neutral parties like David Pakman.

True, Brianna is one of the few antis with some interest in talking to us. She already did once, and the rest of AGG got mad at her.

I am claiming that there is a consensus on a causal link for that 20 to 40 seconds of increased aggression following viewing violent media. Nothing more. I'm not even sure why you are arguing with me now, since my original statement is that we simply do not know if violent media causes violent behavior outside of the short term. It was in response to someone who said it had been proven that it absolutely did not, and he was using the same paper you did to form that opinion.

You understand, that the letter you are citing was written by the author of the paper in question. You might understand from his paper why he has a problem with the APAs statement. He may even be right about it discouraging research. I am glad that the APA will revisit their statement. I doubt however it is going to diminish the consensus on the short term effects of viewing violence. Maybe they will rewrite some of their conclusions to be less forceful, who knows. It also reads like academic complaining about his papers being rejected from professional journals. Which explains why he published in the journal of communications.

There are indeed 275 or so signatures to the letter , but the APA is an association made up of ~85,000 members. That is .3% of total membership, if all signers are members. I'm not a member of that field, but that is on the level of support for climate change opponents in climatology circles, and wayyy back, the support that smoking not causing cancer had. .3% is hardly a challenge to the current consensus.

So to repeat my original point about violence and media - we don't know.

Then you are ignoring and hand-waving away all the media studies which have found no correlation. That seems disingenuous. You refuse to discuss the merits of this study and others and inexplicably claim a "consensus" based on a single study

Here's an article about a study which shows that rather than violence, the increase in aggression appears to be due to frustration. They found that those who were given a tutorial on how to play showed less aggression than those who were mot.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26921743
This also seems to dispute your claims....

Here's another showing that violence decreases shortly after a new game release...
http://www.timesherald.com/lifestyle/20140930/villanova-professor-violent-video-games-dont-cause-real-life-violence-in-most-cases

So far, you have provided nothing to this discussion, yet I have shown multiple studies which dispute your claims, yet you carry on...

Weird I wrote a response, but it won't post. I even tried to edit it in, and it wouldn't let me!

Linked in that BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/news/education-26049333 - not refuted by the study you linked by the way. Video game playing stunts emotional development...

And here is what the experiment's designers had to say in its relevance to our discusion: The research quoted at the end of the article was cited by a video game exec wasn't even a study on whether games promote violent behavior.

The second article you linked flat out says that some indeed are affected by violence in video games. However, they do not incite tragedies such as sandy hook or columbine. The author of the study is hoping that it is replicated... so, congrats. You just posted evidence that video games stunt emotional development, and that video games provoke violence in some people. Your now providing proof that I'm wrong by providing proof that video games have negative effects.

I'm not posting individual studies because that's stupid. Its not how science works, its not how scientists develop their views, and it isn't how individuals should develop theirs. Studies are not magic totems, where you cite the conclusion of the author and your automatically right. Individual articles by themselves are interesting, and they raise posibilities, but the press has a bad habit of taking bad articles and presenting it as fact. There are kids dying of pertussis and measles now because the press sensationalized an article in the lancet that hadn't yet been reproduced.

Edit - unmatched quote ]!

As far as the consensus, its backed by far more than one study. It's a body of research that has its roots in boppo the clown from the 1960s!

Quite frankly, you are an idiot. You call ME stupid for citing and reading actual studies? All you've done all fucking day is claim you know things which clearly you don't. You know shit about science and shit about studies.

All you are doing is trolling...
The APA re-opened the case based on what you call a terrible study because you don't like the journal it was published in. Well guess what, the APA apparently likes that stufy.. Are they idiots now too? Are they stupid? Or are you so much smarter than them? Seriously, get your head out of your ass.

From the authors of the first study... You also seem to 'conveniently" omit this quote from the author. Case closed.

You are nothing more than a self-righteous social justice idiot who thinks his "side" is so right about everything that he can spout shit out of his ass and call it golden. All you do is take things out of context. Where is your so-called PROOF that there is a causal link to violence in video games? Oh yeah, you think its STUPID to reference studies. I hope you go back to your Candy Crush or Tetris which the first author thinks causes more frustration...

I meant 'presented as toys for children' as in marketed as something adults might want to buy to give to children, not as in selling to children directly
Although it would be interesting to know what the sales culture is like in those stores if a kid had saved up his pocket money / allowance and tried to buy an '18' game directly - I can only assume the sales staff are more clued up and better trained than the marketers when it comes to that sort of thing...

Vain seems to have gone underground to protect his rep and it co-relates to this short term surge of misinformed game-hating wanna-be progressiveness crusaders. I cry patriarchy.