Posted June 08, 2015
also about anita, remember Milo offered to donate 5000$(later10000$) to a charity of their choice if she debated him at E3
dragonbeast
rusher
Registered: Jul 2009
From Belgium
also about anita, remember Milo offered to donate 5000$(later10000$) to a charity of their choice if she debated him at E3
Fever_Discordia
Don't Panic
Registered: Nov 2010
From United Kingdom
Posted June 08, 2015
low rated
The caption read..."The Best Toy Prices in Australia...Guaranteed!" Nowhere does it say buy GTA V for your kids. But social justice idiots like yourself just want to take everything out of context.
The ad showed three boxes. One with action figures, for boys and girls; one with a pink pig plushy; for young children; and GTA V; for adults. This makes perfect sense as its only a one page newspaper ad. And conveniently, the whole bottom half of the ad is cut off on the picture.
I wonder why Leigh would only show the top half of the ad. Could it be the bottom half doesn't fit her narrative?
Because we all know Target is just a children's toy store, right?
:P
Post edited June 08, 2015 by Fever_Discordia
LiquidOxygen80
In the 36 Chmbrs
Registered: Sep 2010
From United States
Posted June 08, 2015
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...
Shadowstalker16
Jaded optimist
Registered: Apr 2014
From India
Fever_Discordia
Don't Panic
Registered: Nov 2010
From United Kingdom
Shadowstalker16
Jaded optimist
Registered: Apr 2014
From India
Posted June 08, 2015
Have a readie hea pwease : http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/05/20/discrimination-as-a-favor-to-help-your-social-group/70093.html
Trigger warning: science(psychology)
Discussing who is guilty or not in a social media environment where any arguments that go against the grain (yah shaving jokes; cus I'm a mishogynist) are frowned upon will only lead to mass groupthink driven hysteria and end in mob lynching. If the current judicial systems run by people with law degrees and conducted in trials in which both sides present evidence and argue are just coping with the crimes, how can a group of cultist professional twats do anything better? I'm asking this seriously. Do you really believe social justice is anything but a group of vengeful control freaks trying force their opinions?
Trigger warning: science(psychology)
Discussing who is guilty or not in a social media environment where any arguments that go against the grain (yah shaving jokes; cus I'm a mishogynist) are frowned upon will only lead to mass groupthink driven hysteria and end in mob lynching. If the current judicial systems run by people with law degrees and conducted in trials in which both sides present evidence and argue are just coping with the crimes, how can a group of cultist professional twats do anything better? I'm asking this seriously. Do you really believe social justice is anything but a group of vengeful control freaks trying force their opinions?
Post edited June 08, 2015 by Shadowstalker16
227
New User
Registered: May 2011
From United States
Posted June 08, 2015
It's an ironic title, like calling a 300-pound biker "Tiny."
There's nothing fair or just about modern-day social justice. You have manufactured outrage over stupid things like Shirtgate and the Pillars of Eternity poem, cries of harassment over ridiculous things (like when David Pakman apologized to Quinn on Twitter, only to be accused of harassing her by apologizing—this actually happened), outright cultish behavior where the ends always justify the means (harassing and getting the notyourshield creator fired, openly advocating doxxing, and outright lying about things like John Walker's "thousands" of harassing tweets that were proven to have never occurred), and a culture where even talking with those you disagree with is considered a no-no (Wu getting piled on for having coffee with Brad Wardell).
I've never met anyone in GG apart from the most fringe trolls who had any problem with the idea of a fairer society. In fact, it could be argued that the key difference between us and them is that we don't think that knocking some people down and guilt-tripping them into submission is a reasonable way to achieve equality.
There's nothing fair or just about modern-day social justice. You have manufactured outrage over stupid things like Shirtgate and the Pillars of Eternity poem, cries of harassment over ridiculous things (like when David Pakman apologized to Quinn on Twitter, only to be accused of harassing her by apologizing—this actually happened), outright cultish behavior where the ends always justify the means (harassing and getting the notyourshield creator fired, openly advocating doxxing, and outright lying about things like John Walker's "thousands" of harassing tweets that were proven to have never occurred), and a culture where even talking with those you disagree with is considered a no-no (Wu getting piled on for having coffee with Brad Wardell).
I've never met anyone in GG apart from the most fringe trolls who had any problem with the idea of a fairer society. In fact, it could be argued that the key difference between us and them is that we don't think that knocking some people down and guilt-tripping them into submission is a reasonable way to achieve equality.
Shadowstalker16
Jaded optimist
Registered: Apr 2014
From India
Posted June 08, 2015
OMG master MacIntosh decoded : http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/02/24/prejudice-may-stem-from-low-self-esteem/23839.html
Fever_Discordia
Don't Panic
Registered: Nov 2010
From United Kingdom
Posted June 08, 2015
low rated
Trigger warning: science(psychology)
That doesn't necessarily imply affiliation with any cult-like groups, I mean it MUST be possible to strive for a fair and just society in a fair and just way, fully independently if necessary...
Not that I'm making any person claims...
Shadowstalker16
Jaded optimist
Registered: Apr 2014
From India
Posted June 08, 2015
Trigger warning: science(psychology)
Discussing who is guilty or not in a social media environment where any arguments that go against the grain (yah shaving jokes; cus I'm a mishogynist) are frowned upon will only lead to mass groupthink driven hysteria and end in mob lynching. If the current judicial systems run by people with law degrees and conducted in trials in which both sides present evidence and argue are just coping with the crimes, how can a group of cultist professional twats do anything better? I'm asking this seriously. Do you really believe social justice is anything but a group of vengeful control freaks trying force their opinions?
That doesn't necessarily imply affiliation with any cult-like groups, I mean it MUST be possible to strive for a fair and just society in a fair and just way, fully independently if necessary...
Not that I'm making any person claims...
Your vision of social justice, which is something like participatory democracy may exist somewhere, but not here today on the internet.
keyvin
New User
Registered: Jan 2013
From United States
Posted June 08, 2015
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.
[/quote
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...
Up until the lancet retracted the autism/vaccine article, people quoted it and quoted it and quoted it. That's the problem with taking single studies as authoritative.
Someone in the field has several years of training in statistical methods and experiment design. They are required to read a paper a week for a seminar usually. In the case of the article published in the journal of communications, do you understand the statistical methodology used? Are you familiar with the studies he cites, whether there has been additional research done on them, or they have been reproduced? If your not an expert in the field, a shortcut to this is to trust the journal's reviewers.
It has nothing to do with how smart you are, it has to do with lacking the training to fully understand the nuances of a specific study. These papers are not written for people on an internet message board, there written for an audience with very specific training.
It's kind of like taking a verse or book of the bible out of context by laiety.
The researchers say that the findings offer an important contribution to the debate about the effects of violent video games. Ryan says that many critics of video games have been premature in their conclusions that violent video games cause aggression. “It’s a complicated area, and people have simplistic views,” he explains, noting that nonviolent games like Tetris or Candy Crush can leave players as, if not more, aggressive than games with violence, if they’re poorly designed or too difficult.
"While, after playing violent video games, some people might be more likely to act like “jerks,” that does not mean their behavior rises to the level of violence, said Markey, who has been doing research on media for 10 years. It’s “quite a leap” to say that violent video games led to the horrific Sandy Hook or Columbine shootings, for example, he said."
So get over yourself, you do not know more than 99.7% of the APA because you read two studies. Actually it was four studies, but your forgetting about two because you got tricked by a misleading headline. Even if the previous research was flawed, it simply means we're back to not knowing - which is where I said we were.
I'm far from an SJW. I'm a christian moralist. The decline of christian values in our culture is disgusting, and repugnant. I don't however think violent video games should be censored or anything of the sort. I do believe that retailers and parents should be held responsible for ensuring minors are consuming age appropriate media. Further, I believe that peggi should hand down more adult ratings.
keyvin
New User
Registered: Jan 2013
From United States
Posted June 08, 2015
Having outed myself as the demon of both sides of GG and AGG, has anyone on either side put together a list of the goals or aims of their movement that are viewed as authoritative? It seems like its moved beyond being about games journalism to a large degree.
RWarehall
Ja'loja!
Registered: Jan 2012
From United States
Posted June 08, 2015
You have still not proven a casual link to violence from video games, because such has not been proven at all.
People are just supposed to take YOUR word on it.
Are you claiming that all these researchers who claim there has been no conclusive proof are wrong?
And what qualifies YOU to make that determination?
You claim there are no long-term studies, but you are wrong. You just want to throw out any study which you don't agree with. Studies have been done which track video game usage with violent crime and they are finding no correlation. Studies have tracked spikes in usage finding no spikes and general long-term trends. In fact, violent crime in the US has dropped precipitously since about the start of the video game generation.
And let's not go into funding and potential political motivations in this process. How studies are funded to find results, and those who continue to find results get the funding for the next.
So far you have shown in these conversations an inability to read a dictionary but now you claim to be some super-scientist. Your claims are just silly that boycotters "have no power" thus can't be a cause for censorship. Everyone can see what happens when the media picks up on it. They clearly have power then. Why do they do it, if they have no power to change anything?
keyvin: Having outed myself as the demon of both sides of GG and AGG, has anyone on either side put together a list of the goals or aims of their movement that are viewed as authoritative? It seems like its moved beyond being about games journalism to a large degree. The goals of Gamergate are simple.
1) Fair reporting in the media. (Fact-check and objective reporting).
This breaks down into many things...
Don't cry "misogyny" and "patriarchy" at the drop of a hat.
Don't report on a love interest or roommate's games.
Don't click-bait.
Be honest and objective.
Get actual facts.
Essentially, leave gaming alone if you are not going to be honest and objective about it...
People are just supposed to take YOUR word on it.
Are you claiming that all these researchers who claim there has been no conclusive proof are wrong?
And what qualifies YOU to make that determination?
You claim there are no long-term studies, but you are wrong. You just want to throw out any study which you don't agree with. Studies have been done which track video game usage with violent crime and they are finding no correlation. Studies have tracked spikes in usage finding no spikes and general long-term trends. In fact, violent crime in the US has dropped precipitously since about the start of the video game generation.
And let's not go into funding and potential political motivations in this process. How studies are funded to find results, and those who continue to find results get the funding for the next.
So far you have shown in these conversations an inability to read a dictionary but now you claim to be some super-scientist. Your claims are just silly that boycotters "have no power" thus can't be a cause for censorship. Everyone can see what happens when the media picks up on it. They clearly have power then. Why do they do it, if they have no power to change anything?
1) Fair reporting in the media. (Fact-check and objective reporting).
This breaks down into many things...
Don't cry "misogyny" and "patriarchy" at the drop of a hat.
Don't report on a love interest or roommate's games.
Don't click-bait.
Be honest and objective.
Get actual facts.
Essentially, leave gaming alone if you are not going to be honest and objective about it...
Post edited June 08, 2015 by RWarehall
Shadowstalker16
Jaded optimist
Registered: Apr 2014
From India
Posted June 08, 2015
Follow journalistic ethics. Mainly related to disclosing conflict of interest, and any financial transaction that took place, as well as not click-baiting, and not hiding facts.
RWarehall
Ja'loja!
Registered: Jan 2012
From United States
Posted June 08, 2015
How many children do you know that read the newspaper cover to cover anyway? Clearly the target audience, huh?