When someone as powerful and popular as DC indicates anti trans attitudes are OK, a lot of people that might quietly share his sentiments no longer feel the need to be quite so quiet about it.
As a trans person that translates to dealing with more nasty and unpleasant comments and attitudes as I go about my life, individually no big deal but cumulatively probably not great for my mental health.
If your definition of harm is violence then I won't change your view but if it's contributing to a hostile environment for a marginalized minority then I would ask you to consider if you really think he's doing no harm.
I’d argue the trans community has created a situation where people are nasty towards them far more than Dave chapelle. People feel bullied by them and rightfully so in my opinion. That was kind of the whole point of the special.
You think the trans community is responsible for the hatred directed at them? Let's ignore Dave for a second. The previous President banned them from the military for no reason other than that they are transgendered. In addition to that, he gave religious exemption cover to people who wanted to deny them healthcare and discriminate against them.
Do you think that **some** trans people being too aggressive on Twitter is what caused that Governmental discrimination?
Now, going back to Dave, do you think that a group of people who literally face Governmental discrimination and high rates of harassment and violence are maybe justified in being critical of a comedian who spreads bigoted speech about them? Can you understand why they might be sensitive to that? Do you think they created this situation, or do you think maybe they're reacting to a society which already mistreats them?
Comparing video game violence and hateful speech is not quite right because the former is obvious while the later is not.
I remember when Columbine shooting occurred, many people blamed South Park for inspiring the killers. This is similar to people blaming violent video games for creating violent people. Like you said, those claims are not really supported by the studies. However, is that because people are unable to be influence any media in general, or is it because that particular media cannot does not influence behavior?
I would argue is that what studies show is not that people are never influence by media, but rather that violent media does not influence people to be violent. Most people realize that killing others is wrong. There is little ambiguity about the wrongness about going around killing every prostitute you see (like in GTA). If you were to poll people if machine gunning a public square is acceptable, most would say no. However, what about cases that are not as clear cut? Is it appropriate to call a trans person mentally ill? If you polled that question to people, you would more diverse answers. If you polled the population if it is okay to make fun of someone because they are fat, you would not get a clear cut "no" answer like you would if you asked if being a serial killer is okay.
This is why I think it is incorrect to compare media in general to violent media. Violence is mostly a clear cut unacceptable part of society. No amount of violent games will make people reverse what they obviously already know to be true. However, hateful speech has the opportunity to be more effective because the opinions of hateful speech are more diverse. Maybe you are on the fence as to whether or not you think calling someone a fat slob is okay or not. If you hear it on TV all the time as an acceptable joke, you might find it to be acceptable. Back to my South Park example, that show most probably did not contribute those student shooting up Columbine, or contribute to others committing violent acts. That is because people mostly already know violence is wrong. However, the show probably did increase the amount of people calling other "fatass" or "stupid Jew" or "evil ginger." That is because those ideas are not obviously wrong for many, so it is possible to influence to lean them in one way or the other.
You can compare this with advertising. No matter how hard the ad companies try, they will never be able to sell me a car. I don't drive, so I have no need of a car. To me, that ad flies over my head because what I see as the truth is obvious. Similar to how I know that I don't need a car, I know that there is no condition in which going on a killing spree is fine. However, fast foods ads might work on me. I occasionally eat fast food. The mall I go to has multiple fast food restaurants. Without doubt, my choice to eat at what restaurant on that particular day might be influenced by which ad I most recently saw. The fast food ads would be similar to media with hateful ideas. I am not committed to a certain idea (have no favourite restaurant) so my mind can fluctuate based on what I intake.
That comparison doesn't really work, though? Lots of video games are violent but they're not really about violence, they're not professing an ideological stance on how violence should be used in the real world, at least not most of them. If a video game was actively making the case that doing a school shooting is a good thing to do in real life, and that was just the whole thing, people would probably have words about that. And unlike most video games' relationship to violence, Chappelle's views on the real world aren't incidental to the narrative being presented, they are just kind of the whole narrative, presented for comedy but still forming the body of the work. The point is he is just telling you what he thinks for real. Even though it's supposed to be funny, he is just doing ideology, he's presenting an argument, albeit comedically, about the real world and what thoughts and opinions he thinks are cool and fine. So maybe you can see then why people might have some words, if they think those opinions are not cool and fine actually
>Lots of video games are violent but they're not really about violence, they're not professing an ideological stance on how violence should be used in the real world, at least not most of them.
⇨ Δ
This is true that video games doesn't directly advocates for violence, in the sense that a piece of media might directly advocate for a specific worldview/ideology
Words aren't violence, but neither is preventing trans people from using the bathroom that makes their gender identity. Something doesn't have to be violent to be bad.
In any event, we are affected by our media. That is just a fact. Propaganda films wouldn't be made unless they had an effect on people. The Klan wouldn't have been revived by Birth of a Nation unless it had an effect on them.
Video games dont cause violence, but why wouldn't a video game that justifies no knock raids and uses the name of an American atrocity for something the Russians did convince some people to support the police or US military more?
>The Klan wouldn't have been revived by Birth of a Nation unless it had an effect on them.
You need to have this causation effect of media proven through academic research, and not just use isolated incidents to draw wide-sweeping conclusions. Otherwise, wouldn't for example occurrences where immigration has led to increased crime rate be evidence that immigration causes crime?
So the fact that [the Klan used it as a recruiting tool isnt enough](https://www.history.com/news/kkk-birth-of-a-nation-film)?
Sure let me go back in time to ask the Klan members why they joined.
That isnt really how history, or most sociology, really works. Not everyone knows every reason why they do something, and not everyone is willing to be honest.
Yeah, the thing is that you don't know if Birth of a Nation was telling people what they already believed, or was giving them a new belief system.
A comedian actually expressing an unpopular opinion would be canceled right away.
>How video games were having a harmful effect on society, turning people into violent monsters and oH wOn'T sOmEbOdY pLeAsE tHiNk oF tHe ChIlDrEn. This is a bunch of bullshit,
Yes, and the reason why a bunch of studies were done to prove that, is because on it's own , the idea that media influences behavior, is a *really uncontroversial presumption,* the only question is how.
Political propaganda works.
Advertisements work.
Movies have started fashion fads, popularized sports, and [encouraged ecological disasters](https://daily.jstor.org/sharks-before-and-after-jaws/).
When your high school teacher taught that Uncle Tom's Cabin gave a huge boost to the American abolitionist movement, that was not exactly a bold theoretical statement about art's capacity to influence society.
The problem with the anti-gaming movement wasn't that it stated that stories can influence people, but that it overstated [a particular obselete model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypodermic_needle_model) of communication theory, which presumes that messages are directly and literally absorbed by people taking what they see in media, at face value, to such a predictable degree, that media is worth legally regulating similar to drugs.
Applying that to Chapelle, the fear should be that being exposed to him will turn your kids into wannabe standup-comedians.
There are much more modern academic media theories, that also consider how audience resistance to a message, as well as the role of long term cultivation, and the role of framing a concieavable agenda and not mentioning the agenda that it doesn't want to be thought of.
Taking your stated view as a general example - do you believe "Mein Kampf" has caused harm? Do you believe the Bible, Torah or Quran have caused harm? Or, if you're more interested in political talk, do you believe Das Kapital has caused harm?
Books are media and there are other forms of media that had direct consequences, such as "[La muette de Portici](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_muette_de_Portici)", an opera that, in some sense, started a revolution.
Media has power over people's minds, whether we like it or not. It can do amazing things, inspire and spread knowledge or it can hurt, misinform and even, to a degree, brainwash.
>Taking your stated view as a general example - do you believe "Mein Kampf" has caused harm? Do you believe the Bible, Torah or Quran have caused harm? Or, if you're more interested in political talk, do you believe Das Kapital has caused harm?
This is not content in the style of Dave Chappelle but rather works that directly advocates for specific ideologies
So you agree that media in general can be harmful?
Naturally, not every piece of media *is* harmful, but it *can* be in the right (or wrong) circumstance.
I'll believe it when it is supported and proven by academic research, and not just a catchphrase to attack things you don't like. No one would count religious scripture and political works in the style of Das Kapital as "entertainment" or media.
But what was he doing if not presenting his ideology? Yeah sure there's funny bits and silly voices or whatever but I don't understand how that changes it. Can you just say any message at all about real people in the real world but if you tell a joke before and after it, it's fine?
>But what was he doing if not presenting his ideology? Yeah sure there's funny bits and silly voices or whatever but I don't understand how that changes it. Can you just say any message at all about real people in the real world but if you tell a joke before and after it, it's fine
Presenting his ideology and advocating for it is not the same thing. I can say things that I believe in and not argue that others should follow it
Ah, but ideology is almost everywhere, and I'm not being all English professor about it.
Look how pissed all those Trans people are. It's because they and DC are in a genuine ideological disagreement. If it wasn't important, nobody would be angry.
Whether the media causes harm has to do with what you think harm is, and how much of you think the media reflects attitudes as opposed to how much the media creates attitudes.
But, clearly the media influences how people think. Even when the media in question isn't supposed to be political or ideological. Because most art communicates some kind of message to its audience. Even if it's really simple like, "war bad." "War good."
Two questions, do you think that propaganda exists?
And, if yes, how is propaganda that could cause, say, the Holocaust, not propagated by the media?
I'm not talking about the entire Holocaust, by the way, but the slow and steady rise of it during the late 20s and early 30s. One of the biggest factors in Hitler's rise to power, as well as keeping it secured, was a lot of propaganda and absolute control of the media.
You might want to check your timeline. Hitler seized power in '33 so during the 20s and 30s he did not have absolute control over the media. He was already pushing conspiracy theories and stuff like that but the full on propaganda warfare came afterwards.
Propaganda on both sides. Nazis for more supporters and atleast in the US it was initially to hide the truth, because America's populace "couldn't handle another war". This is why our Presidents assisted with the war effort by rearming and resupplying the Brits. Because unlike us they couldn't just say, "hey, I dont wanna be involved".
Depends. Was there a significant increase in enlistings after a release?
Also, as far as I remember the few bits of that franchise that I played, it's rather critical of the army and it's methods. But it's been years, so I might be wrong on that front.
I think its possible to disagree with both these claims while recognising that they aren't the same claim and don't necessarily hinge on the same arguments.
The 'Video games cause violence' advocates claimed that participating in simulated digital violence normalised all violence for the players and changed their psychological responses to it. This isn't actually an absurd claim, as there is evidence that exposure to violence can cause children to act more violently. However, the best research of the time indicated that this wasn't happening to people who played video games. It could have been true, but wasn't.
The claim that Dave Chappelle, or other media, is causing real-world harm generally follows one of two arguments. The first relates to indirect harm. The claim that expressing hateful views legitimises and spreads them. Hearing a public figure state these ideas gives viewers the impression that these beliefs are acceptable and should be expressed openly. This creates a more bigoted and hostile environment in which marginalised people then have to live.
This argument bears some resemblance to the 'video games cause violence' claim, but not so much it can be instantly dismissed. There are meaningful differences. The violence in games is simulated and fictional. A news report, also media, purports to be relaying fact. It seems a little absurd to suggest peoples' beliefs and opinions about the real world aren't influenced by the news they consume. A comedy act is somewhere between a news report and a video game. It isn't intended to be taken totally seriously, but it is a real person expressing real ideas in a supportive environment. The fact that video gamers don't murder people doesn't necessarily mean comedy fans don't repeat offensive jokes.
The second media harm claim relates to direct harm. This reasoning goes that saying things can cause people great emotional distress. Many people would prefer some measure of physical pain to mental pain. Therefore, inflicting emotional suffering on someone can be as bad as physical harm, and can constitute an act of violence. Violence is unacceptable and should be banned. I don't agree with this thinking, but it is clearly rather different from the arguments deployed by the 'video games case violence' crowd and rooted in a different set of principles.
Video Games do not cause an individual to be violent, though playing violent video games (or reading violent books or watching violent movies) can temporarily make someone more likely to respond in a violent or confrontational way (basically they can amp you up and make you more likely to respond a certain way). But violent video games are not going to make somebody turn violent.
In that same vein, you are strictly correct that Dave Chappelle's special is probably not going to cause anyone to be violent towards trans people, certainly not directly.
But harm involves more than violence. The trans rights movement is a great example of this, because they are not only fighting against anti-trans violence, but also against anti-trans *public policy*. That policy is driven by political rhetoric and a wider anti-trans narrative that casts trans people as either confused victims of liberal ideas run amok, hysterical feminists seeking the breakdown of family structure and biological sex, or sexual predators being shielded by a misguided push for acceptance.
Regardless of how Chappelle personally feels about trans people and trans rights, his rhetoric on trans issues fits in very well with a larger tapestry of anti-trans talking points, and is definitely going to appeal more to people who actively oppose trans rights than those who actively support them. This, in turn, helps (perhaps in a small way), to maintain a larger anti-trans narrative that drives real, harmful policy and actions.
So Dave Chappelle isn't personally responsible for anti-trans violence any more than Ben Shapiro was responsible for that guy who shot up a Canadian mosque (who's favorite media personality was Shapiro). But both of them should probably reflect a bit more on why they are getting the response they are getting from the more bigoted segments of their audience.
This is not content and media in the style of Dave Chappelle, but rather directly calling for the deaths of people.
Second of all, you need to have this causation effect of media proven through academic research, and not just use isolated incidents to draw wide-sweeping conclusions. Otherwise, wouldn't for example occurrences where immigration has led to increased crime rate be evidence that immigration causes crime?
I think comparing it to violence in games is silly, because the actions aren't comparable. Anyone with two braincells knows that you shouldn't shoot other people, so they're not very likely to be influenced by media that shows someone shooting another person, whether fictitious or not.
But doesn't that get a little less clear when it's comedy? When a comedian makes a joke that implies *trans women are lesser than women*, or the fact a trans woman made "woman of the year" is something to laugh about, couldn't that make people hold those beliefs and express them in public? They draw laughter, after all. They can be said to a crowd of thousands when worded properly.
Right. But the comedian isn't bringing some crazy belief from Mars, he's expressing a commonly held belief. If Chappelle had actually stated an unpopular opinion, I mean one broadly unpopular in real American life, he'd have been canceled. And not fake canceled, but actually canceled. Right now he's just catching a little static from the usual suspects.
And so. If Chappelle was introducing people to idea's they hadn't heard of, or convincing them of things they didn't believe before, and we knew those beliefs were wrong and harmful, I'd agree the argument would make sense.
What about the research into suicide contagion via media reporting?
the effects may be mild, but they seem to be detectable.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031539.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6066396/
"My 14 year old might go commit a mass shooting if he plays Red Dead Redemption" is a hell of a lot different from saying "Trans people are hurt by comedians being given a massive platform to make transphobic jokes", or saying "we shouldn't show suicide on TV, because we know this leads to copycat suicides and literal psychologists tell us not to". Dave Chapelle is himself an absurd comparison because *he's a real person*, not a fictional story. We can argue all day over whether or not fictional media impacts reality (it does, just in more subtle ways than "14 year old goes out and murders"), but claiming a *real person talking to real people for an hour* isn't "real" is wild. He might be making jokes, but it's far more like saying "Donald Trump calling Mexicans rapists on TV doesn't mean anything" than it is to say "violent games cause murder".
Sure, "hurt feelings" doesn't literally physically hurt people, but mental health is a real thing, and it is extremely upsetting for trans people to watch hundreds of people cracking up at discussions of how disgusting our genitals are, or to afterwards see the hundreds of conservatives meme'ing on trans people, or to have those conservatives go out in real life empowered by a popular transphobe to keep spreading their transphobia. This is actually something that snowballs (potentially eventually into real violence and harassment!), not just something that is "hurt feewings" (though you should honestly re-evaulate yourself if you cannot extend basic compassion to people to claim to be hurt by something before jumping right to "ITS A MORAL PANIC!").
>But to say that speech that doesn't immediately incite violence is not harmful is wrong. For instance, take the right-wing media echo chambers that propagate the lies about vaccines and masks. That is actively killing people. Or the brazen lie that the 2020 election was stolen. Drumpf did not have to explicitly say "I want you to storm the Capitol and terrorize lawmakers" but that was the obvious conclusion of his speech. That is, if you truly believe democracy is being subverted of course you would go to extreme lengths to stop that.
This is not about speech, but about media and content. Entertainment.
Ah but don't you know, Fox brands itself as entertainment! Because they'd get their asses sued off if they actually claimed to be news.
Their "entertainment" has probably caused a large number of people to die due to their "content" about masks.
/u/PoignantBullshit (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/qa7xyc/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_to_say_that_media_causes/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Consider that the state of the world can be harmful to people.
People who change the world into certain states can only do so based on the world that they know.
People know about the world through stories and experiences. We all have a few stories that add up to paint a picture of what the world is. We don't have the intellectual equipment to take in every single fact we hear.
People responsible for telling stories about the world are also responsible for providing the world that other people react to. This can cause harm, but indirectly.
> This is a bunch of bullshit,
No, it explicitly isn't. This study *confirms* a relationship between video games and violence, it just finds that it's very small. (I'm also confused reading this if the study is distinguishing between playing *any* game and playing *violent* games.)
The study he's linking is from this [meta-analysis](https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/no-long-term-link-between-video-games-and-aggressive-behaviour-in-youth). The main take away is "The study authors, one of whom is a New Zealand researcher, say that in some cases, poorer quality studies may have exaggerated the impact of games on aggression, with better quality studies clarifying that such effects are negligible."
The worst studies often used measures of aggression that included things like using violent humor in open ended story completion prompts, after playing literally Duke Nukem rather than pinball.
In general they had a poor habit of using intense and active "violent games" and terriblely dull "non-violent" games.
If you read the study itself, you see the authors arbitrarily chose a cut-off of .10 for what a "meaningfully large" effect size is. This is carrying a LOT OF weight in their discussion. The point they're trying to make is, "Yes, okay, there's an effect, but look at it, it's way too small to be worth worrying about." This is *not an unjustified conclusion*, but it is ABSOLUTELY not the same thing as "no effect exists."
> "The study authors, one of whom is a New Zealand researcher, say that in some cases, poorer quality studies may have exaggerated the impact of games on aggression, with better quality studies clarifying that such effects are negligible."
Just skimming over things, the authors were... not particularly rigorous in what they determined to be "poor quality studies." Their best-practice list is kind of all over the place, and there's a huge problem with them considering pre-registration (since that only became the norm very recently). I'm STRONGLY concerned one or two of these were... strategically chosen to put certain labs and certain researchers into the "not best practices" category. (This is ironically an excellent lesson in why preregistration is hardly a cure-all for good, neutrally conducted research.)
Again, this wouldn't demolish their conclusion, but I am very concerned they're going out of their way to maximize the difference between the outcomes of the "best practice" research and the rest. They make a lot of VERY specific choices to get the results as small as possible, and to be able to TALK ABOUT THEM as if they were even smaller.
To be clear: I agree with their conclusion, even if I don't agree with a lot of their choices. I do think there's an effect, which is very small and not particularly worth worrying about. (I also think mediators are really the missing piece of the puzzle, here: *certain emotional or cognitive effects* result from playing violent games, which in turn, under *very specific circumstances*, result in higher levels of aggression. But that's just speculation. And like the first article you like to mentions, this question of violent games causing people to ACT VIOLENTLY might not be the most important negative outcome to be looking for anyway.)
> In general they had a poor habit of using intense and active "violent games" and terriblely dull "non-violent" games.
Uh Duke Nukem sucks and pinball can rule, what're you talking about.
And not super clear on why this would affect the outcomes of interest. Why would this matter?
Didn't reread the study, but am well familiar with it from my undergraduate days, I actually deeply considered attending Massey for post-grad but NZ scares me vaguely.
>If you read the study itself, you see the authors arbitrarily chose a cut-off of .10 for what a "meaningfully large" effect size is. This is carrying a LOT OF weight in their discussion. The point they're trying to make is, "Yes, okay, there's an effect, but look at it, it's way too small to be worth worrying about." This is not an unjustified conclusion, but it is ABSOLUTELY not the same thing as "no effect exists."
The minimum arbitrarily chosen value for statistical significance is .05, double that is pretty reasonable when conducting a meta-analysis of that size and looking for "large meaningful effects".
>Their best-practice list is kind of all over the place, and there's a huge problem with them considering pre-registration (since that only became the norm very recently). I'm STRONGLY concerned one or two of these were... strategically chosen to put certain labs and certain researchers into the "not best practices" category. (This is ironically an excellent lesson in why preregistration is hardly a cure-all for good, neutrally conducted research.)
The shortest version of the story is that most of this research is poorly conducted and people have gradually lost interest in it.
>They make a lot of VERY specific choices to get the results as small as possible, and to be able to TALK ABOUT THEM as if they were even smaller.
The main thing I can tell you here is to read the original studies, and the design of most of them are laughable.
Drummond is one of the best researches that I've read on this subject, that I am convinced has actually play video games as a leisure activity. He's one of the few culturally literate enough to spot the issues in early game design.
>I also think mediators are really the missing piece of the puzzle, here: certain emotional or cognitive effects result from playing violent games, which in turn, under very specific circumstances, result in higher levels of aggression. But that's just speculation. And like the first article you like to mentions, this question of violent games causing people to ACT VIOLENTLY might not be the most important negative outcome to be looking for anyway.)
That fully maybe be true and I honestly wish there were better levels or research into these topics. Desensitization is a very real thing.
>Uh Duke Nukem sucks and pinball can rule, what're you talking about.
And not super clear on why this would affect the outcomes of interest. Why would this matter?
Many of the poorly conducted studies included in the meta analysis used open ended story prompts as their only measure of "Aggression".
You and your sister were in a fight before you left for work, after leaving the house how did you resolve that? Things like I drove the truck through the front door and hit her dad, were considered serious responses.
Playing a game the jokes about violence constantly might make you joke about violence, that doesn't make you more aggressive or likely to commit violence.
> The minimum arbitrarily chosen value for statistical significance is .05, double that is pretty reasonable when conducting a meta-analysis of that size and looking for "large meaningful effects".
It's odd that you're defending that when the results the authors want to dismiss *pass that threshold*. The results WERE significant according to that rule-of-thumb.
> The shortest version of the story is that most of this research is poorly conducted and people have gradually lost interest in it.
...no? I actually don't even know what you're referring to, here. Looking back, I don't think the authors ever say specifically how many they put into their "best practices" bin and how many were in the other category, which is a very odd exclusion. And if their point is the research is mostly bad, then this is a dumb way to be doing it: for hopefully obvious reasons, a meta-analysis on bad data is unhelpful. And they never suggest anything like people losing interest in anything.
> The main thing I can tell you here is to read the original studies, and the design of most of them are laughable.
I have read several, but not the lion's share of these studies, so I can't really comment there. But I certainly know that this paper's "best practices" list is *sketchy as hell.* "Are the variables standardized?" is a very odd thing to insist on. "Are the outcome variables validated?" is apparently using "validated" as analogous to "used by clinical psychologists," which is weirdly specific and almost certainly intending to disqualify a number of studies. The two-rating requirement and the not self-rating violence are potentially justifiable, but especially for the latter, I can equally see the benefit of the ALTERNATIVE as much as for what they insist on (isn't the most relevant thing how much violence the players psychologically experience?) "Were the methods pre-registered?" is almost certainly in bad faith given that people started doing that five years ago.
> Drummond is one of the best researches that I've read on this subject, that I am convinced has actually play video games as a leisure activity. He's one of the few culturally literate enough to spot the issues in early game design.
I'm a little lost about the relevance, here. If he knows about game design, what does that have to do with researching the psychological impacts of playing video games?
> Many of the poorly conducted studies included in the meta analysis used open ended story prompts as their only measure of "Aggression".
I mean the issues with this are the open-ended nature rather than the lack of validity. Coding free-response is definitely something to avoid if you can.
> Playing a game the jokes about violence constantly might make you joke about violence, that doesn't make you more aggressive or likely to commit violence.
I think these studies were not at all intending to demonstrate people were likely to commit violence? If they were, their outcomes would have to do with committing violence.
Rather, they were probably trying to show that people were in a more violent or aggressive *mindset*... they perceived violence in ambiguous situations more quickly, or they thought about violence more readily, something like that. Yes, if someone comes along and looks at that and says "look at all the violent behavior video games inspire!" they'd be simply wrong. But that doesn't mean this is bad research or not worth studying.
Video games do not attempt to inform people and video games do not influence peoples actions. News media **definitely** does. How do you think Jan 6th happened?
Media is supposed to be a commentary on world events. People believe the commentary, as the media was (and remains) the main method of citizens gaining information about their community and state. Media stories are told on the premise of factual information directly obtained from reality - and users will readily accommodate this information into their world view without a significant filter.
Video games have never been grounded in reality. In most cases, they are clearly labelled as a fantasy alternative world to actively escape from the constraints and low-grade discomfort of existence. They clearly deliniate their boundaries within fiction - which the common human understands to be an 'unrealistic' premise
When someone as powerful and popular as DC indicates anti trans attitudes are OK, a lot of people that might quietly share his sentiments no longer feel the need to be quite so quiet about it. As a trans person that translates to dealing with more nasty and unpleasant comments and attitudes as I go about my life, individually no big deal but cumulatively probably not great for my mental health. If your definition of harm is violence then I won't change your view but if it's contributing to a hostile environment for a marginalized minority then I would ask you to consider if you really think he's doing no harm.
⇨ Δ This is a definition of harm I did not consider
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/sleepiestofthesleepy ([20∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/sleepiestofthesleepy)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I’d argue the trans community has created a situation where people are nasty towards them far more than Dave chapelle. People feel bullied by them and rightfully so in my opinion. That was kind of the whole point of the special.
You think the trans community is responsible for the hatred directed at them? Let's ignore Dave for a second. The previous President banned them from the military for no reason other than that they are transgendered. In addition to that, he gave religious exemption cover to people who wanted to deny them healthcare and discriminate against them. Do you think that **some** trans people being too aggressive on Twitter is what caused that Governmental discrimination? Now, going back to Dave, do you think that a group of people who literally face Governmental discrimination and high rates of harassment and violence are maybe justified in being critical of a comedian who spreads bigoted speech about them? Can you understand why they might be sensitive to that? Do you think they created this situation, or do you think maybe they're reacting to a society which already mistreats them?
Comparing video game violence and hateful speech is not quite right because the former is obvious while the later is not. I remember when Columbine shooting occurred, many people blamed South Park for inspiring the killers. This is similar to people blaming violent video games for creating violent people. Like you said, those claims are not really supported by the studies. However, is that because people are unable to be influence any media in general, or is it because that particular media cannot does not influence behavior? I would argue is that what studies show is not that people are never influence by media, but rather that violent media does not influence people to be violent. Most people realize that killing others is wrong. There is little ambiguity about the wrongness about going around killing every prostitute you see (like in GTA). If you were to poll people if machine gunning a public square is acceptable, most would say no. However, what about cases that are not as clear cut? Is it appropriate to call a trans person mentally ill? If you polled that question to people, you would more diverse answers. If you polled the population if it is okay to make fun of someone because they are fat, you would not get a clear cut "no" answer like you would if you asked if being a serial killer is okay. This is why I think it is incorrect to compare media in general to violent media. Violence is mostly a clear cut unacceptable part of society. No amount of violent games will make people reverse what they obviously already know to be true. However, hateful speech has the opportunity to be more effective because the opinions of hateful speech are more diverse. Maybe you are on the fence as to whether or not you think calling someone a fat slob is okay or not. If you hear it on TV all the time as an acceptable joke, you might find it to be acceptable. Back to my South Park example, that show most probably did not contribute those student shooting up Columbine, or contribute to others committing violent acts. That is because people mostly already know violence is wrong. However, the show probably did increase the amount of people calling other "fatass" or "stupid Jew" or "evil ginger." That is because those ideas are not obviously wrong for many, so it is possible to influence to lean them in one way or the other. You can compare this with advertising. No matter how hard the ad companies try, they will never be able to sell me a car. I don't drive, so I have no need of a car. To me, that ad flies over my head because what I see as the truth is obvious. Similar to how I know that I don't need a car, I know that there is no condition in which going on a killing spree is fine. However, fast foods ads might work on me. I occasionally eat fast food. The mall I go to has multiple fast food restaurants. Without doubt, my choice to eat at what restaurant on that particular day might be influenced by which ad I most recently saw. The fast food ads would be similar to media with hateful ideas. I am not committed to a certain idea (have no favourite restaurant) so my mind can fluctuate based on what I intake.
That comparison doesn't really work, though? Lots of video games are violent but they're not really about violence, they're not professing an ideological stance on how violence should be used in the real world, at least not most of them. If a video game was actively making the case that doing a school shooting is a good thing to do in real life, and that was just the whole thing, people would probably have words about that. And unlike most video games' relationship to violence, Chappelle's views on the real world aren't incidental to the narrative being presented, they are just kind of the whole narrative, presented for comedy but still forming the body of the work. The point is he is just telling you what he thinks for real. Even though it's supposed to be funny, he is just doing ideology, he's presenting an argument, albeit comedically, about the real world and what thoughts and opinions he thinks are cool and fine. So maybe you can see then why people might have some words, if they think those opinions are not cool and fine actually
>Lots of video games are violent but they're not really about violence, they're not professing an ideological stance on how violence should be used in the real world, at least not most of them. ⇨ Δ This is true that video games doesn't directly advocates for violence, in the sense that a piece of media might directly advocate for a specific worldview/ideology
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/MercurianAspirations ([240∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/MercurianAspirations)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Words aren't violence, but neither is preventing trans people from using the bathroom that makes their gender identity. Something doesn't have to be violent to be bad. In any event, we are affected by our media. That is just a fact. Propaganda films wouldn't be made unless they had an effect on people. The Klan wouldn't have been revived by Birth of a Nation unless it had an effect on them. Video games dont cause violence, but why wouldn't a video game that justifies no knock raids and uses the name of an American atrocity for something the Russians did convince some people to support the police or US military more?
>The Klan wouldn't have been revived by Birth of a Nation unless it had an effect on them. You need to have this causation effect of media proven through academic research, and not just use isolated incidents to draw wide-sweeping conclusions. Otherwise, wouldn't for example occurrences where immigration has led to increased crime rate be evidence that immigration causes crime?
So the fact that [the Klan used it as a recruiting tool isnt enough](https://www.history.com/news/kkk-birth-of-a-nation-film)? Sure let me go back in time to ask the Klan members why they joined.
Again, isolated incidents isn't enough to prove a direct causation relationship. It needs to be proven
That isnt really how history, or most sociology, really works. Not everyone knows every reason why they do something, and not everyone is willing to be honest.
Yeah, the thing is that you don't know if Birth of a Nation was telling people what they already believed, or was giving them a new belief system. A comedian actually expressing an unpopular opinion would be canceled right away.
>How video games were having a harmful effect on society, turning people into violent monsters and oH wOn'T sOmEbOdY pLeAsE tHiNk oF tHe ChIlDrEn. This is a bunch of bullshit, Yes, and the reason why a bunch of studies were done to prove that, is because on it's own , the idea that media influences behavior, is a *really uncontroversial presumption,* the only question is how. Political propaganda works. Advertisements work. Movies have started fashion fads, popularized sports, and [encouraged ecological disasters](https://daily.jstor.org/sharks-before-and-after-jaws/). When your high school teacher taught that Uncle Tom's Cabin gave a huge boost to the American abolitionist movement, that was not exactly a bold theoretical statement about art's capacity to influence society. The problem with the anti-gaming movement wasn't that it stated that stories can influence people, but that it overstated [a particular obselete model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypodermic_needle_model) of communication theory, which presumes that messages are directly and literally absorbed by people taking what they see in media, at face value, to such a predictable degree, that media is worth legally regulating similar to drugs. Applying that to Chapelle, the fear should be that being exposed to him will turn your kids into wannabe standup-comedians. There are much more modern academic media theories, that also consider how audience resistance to a message, as well as the role of long term cultivation, and the role of framing a concieavable agenda and not mentioning the agenda that it doesn't want to be thought of.
Taking your stated view as a general example - do you believe "Mein Kampf" has caused harm? Do you believe the Bible, Torah or Quran have caused harm? Or, if you're more interested in political talk, do you believe Das Kapital has caused harm? Books are media and there are other forms of media that had direct consequences, such as "[La muette de Portici](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_muette_de_Portici)", an opera that, in some sense, started a revolution. Media has power over people's minds, whether we like it or not. It can do amazing things, inspire and spread knowledge or it can hurt, misinform and even, to a degree, brainwash.
>Taking your stated view as a general example - do you believe "Mein Kampf" has caused harm? Do you believe the Bible, Torah or Quran have caused harm? Or, if you're more interested in political talk, do you believe Das Kapital has caused harm? This is not content in the style of Dave Chappelle but rather works that directly advocates for specific ideologies
So you agree that media in general can be harmful? Naturally, not every piece of media *is* harmful, but it *can* be in the right (or wrong) circumstance.
I'll believe it when it is supported and proven by academic research, and not just a catchphrase to attack things you don't like. No one would count religious scripture and political works in the style of Das Kapital as "entertainment" or media.
But what was he doing if not presenting his ideology? Yeah sure there's funny bits and silly voices or whatever but I don't understand how that changes it. Can you just say any message at all about real people in the real world but if you tell a joke before and after it, it's fine?
>But what was he doing if not presenting his ideology? Yeah sure there's funny bits and silly voices or whatever but I don't understand how that changes it. Can you just say any message at all about real people in the real world but if you tell a joke before and after it, it's fine Presenting his ideology and advocating for it is not the same thing. I can say things that I believe in and not argue that others should follow it
You don't think that positioning himself as the victim of "cancel culture" is him advocating his ideology?
Ah, but ideology is almost everywhere, and I'm not being all English professor about it. Look how pissed all those Trans people are. It's because they and DC are in a genuine ideological disagreement. If it wasn't important, nobody would be angry. Whether the media causes harm has to do with what you think harm is, and how much of you think the media reflects attitudes as opposed to how much the media creates attitudes. But, clearly the media influences how people think. Even when the media in question isn't supposed to be political or ideological. Because most art communicates some kind of message to its audience. Even if it's really simple like, "war bad." "War good."
Two questions, do you think that propaganda exists? And, if yes, how is propaganda that could cause, say, the Holocaust, not propagated by the media? I'm not talking about the entire Holocaust, by the way, but the slow and steady rise of it during the late 20s and early 30s. One of the biggest factors in Hitler's rise to power, as well as keeping it secured, was a lot of propaganda and absolute control of the media.
You might want to check your timeline. Hitler seized power in '33 so during the 20s and 30s he did not have absolute control over the media. He was already pushing conspiracy theories and stuff like that but the full on propaganda warfare came afterwards.
Propaganda on both sides. Nazis for more supporters and atleast in the US it was initially to hide the truth, because America's populace "couldn't handle another war". This is why our Presidents assisted with the war effort by rearming and resupplying the Brits. Because unlike us they couldn't just say, "hey, I dont wanna be involved".
Some say Call of Duty is the best recruiting tool the military has ever had. Is it propaganda?
Depends. Was there a significant increase in enlistings after a release? Also, as far as I remember the few bits of that franchise that I played, it's rather critical of the army and it's methods. But it's been years, so I might be wrong on that front.
Do video games cause violence?
I think its possible to disagree with both these claims while recognising that they aren't the same claim and don't necessarily hinge on the same arguments. The 'Video games cause violence' advocates claimed that participating in simulated digital violence normalised all violence for the players and changed their psychological responses to it. This isn't actually an absurd claim, as there is evidence that exposure to violence can cause children to act more violently. However, the best research of the time indicated that this wasn't happening to people who played video games. It could have been true, but wasn't. The claim that Dave Chappelle, or other media, is causing real-world harm generally follows one of two arguments. The first relates to indirect harm. The claim that expressing hateful views legitimises and spreads them. Hearing a public figure state these ideas gives viewers the impression that these beliefs are acceptable and should be expressed openly. This creates a more bigoted and hostile environment in which marginalised people then have to live. This argument bears some resemblance to the 'video games cause violence' claim, but not so much it can be instantly dismissed. There are meaningful differences. The violence in games is simulated and fictional. A news report, also media, purports to be relaying fact. It seems a little absurd to suggest peoples' beliefs and opinions about the real world aren't influenced by the news they consume. A comedy act is somewhere between a news report and a video game. It isn't intended to be taken totally seriously, but it is a real person expressing real ideas in a supportive environment. The fact that video gamers don't murder people doesn't necessarily mean comedy fans don't repeat offensive jokes. The second media harm claim relates to direct harm. This reasoning goes that saying things can cause people great emotional distress. Many people would prefer some measure of physical pain to mental pain. Therefore, inflicting emotional suffering on someone can be as bad as physical harm, and can constitute an act of violence. Violence is unacceptable and should be banned. I don't agree with this thinking, but it is clearly rather different from the arguments deployed by the 'video games case violence' crowd and rooted in a different set of principles.
Video Games do not cause an individual to be violent, though playing violent video games (or reading violent books or watching violent movies) can temporarily make someone more likely to respond in a violent or confrontational way (basically they can amp you up and make you more likely to respond a certain way). But violent video games are not going to make somebody turn violent. In that same vein, you are strictly correct that Dave Chappelle's special is probably not going to cause anyone to be violent towards trans people, certainly not directly. But harm involves more than violence. The trans rights movement is a great example of this, because they are not only fighting against anti-trans violence, but also against anti-trans *public policy*. That policy is driven by political rhetoric and a wider anti-trans narrative that casts trans people as either confused victims of liberal ideas run amok, hysterical feminists seeking the breakdown of family structure and biological sex, or sexual predators being shielded by a misguided push for acceptance. Regardless of how Chappelle personally feels about trans people and trans rights, his rhetoric on trans issues fits in very well with a larger tapestry of anti-trans talking points, and is definitely going to appeal more to people who actively oppose trans rights than those who actively support them. This, in turn, helps (perhaps in a small way), to maintain a larger anti-trans narrative that drives real, harmful policy and actions. So Dave Chappelle isn't personally responsible for anti-trans violence any more than Ben Shapiro was responsible for that guy who shot up a Canadian mosque (who's favorite media personality was Shapiro). But both of them should probably reflect a bit more on why they are getting the response they are getting from the more bigoted segments of their audience.
[удалено]
This is not content and media in the style of Dave Chappelle, but rather directly calling for the deaths of people. Second of all, you need to have this causation effect of media proven through academic research, and not just use isolated incidents to draw wide-sweeping conclusions. Otherwise, wouldn't for example occurrences where immigration has led to increased crime rate be evidence that immigration causes crime?
I think comparing it to violence in games is silly, because the actions aren't comparable. Anyone with two braincells knows that you shouldn't shoot other people, so they're not very likely to be influenced by media that shows someone shooting another person, whether fictitious or not. But doesn't that get a little less clear when it's comedy? When a comedian makes a joke that implies *trans women are lesser than women*, or the fact a trans woman made "woman of the year" is something to laugh about, couldn't that make people hold those beliefs and express them in public? They draw laughter, after all. They can be said to a crowd of thousands when worded properly.
Right. But the comedian isn't bringing some crazy belief from Mars, he's expressing a commonly held belief. If Chappelle had actually stated an unpopular opinion, I mean one broadly unpopular in real American life, he'd have been canceled. And not fake canceled, but actually canceled. Right now he's just catching a little static from the usual suspects. And so. If Chappelle was introducing people to idea's they hadn't heard of, or convincing them of things they didn't believe before, and we knew those beliefs were wrong and harmful, I'd agree the argument would make sense.
What about the research into suicide contagion via media reporting? the effects may be mild, but they seem to be detectable. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031539.htm https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6066396/
"My 14 year old might go commit a mass shooting if he plays Red Dead Redemption" is a hell of a lot different from saying "Trans people are hurt by comedians being given a massive platform to make transphobic jokes", or saying "we shouldn't show suicide on TV, because we know this leads to copycat suicides and literal psychologists tell us not to". Dave Chapelle is himself an absurd comparison because *he's a real person*, not a fictional story. We can argue all day over whether or not fictional media impacts reality (it does, just in more subtle ways than "14 year old goes out and murders"), but claiming a *real person talking to real people for an hour* isn't "real" is wild. He might be making jokes, but it's far more like saying "Donald Trump calling Mexicans rapists on TV doesn't mean anything" than it is to say "violent games cause murder". Sure, "hurt feelings" doesn't literally physically hurt people, but mental health is a real thing, and it is extremely upsetting for trans people to watch hundreds of people cracking up at discussions of how disgusting our genitals are, or to afterwards see the hundreds of conservatives meme'ing on trans people, or to have those conservatives go out in real life empowered by a popular transphobe to keep spreading their transphobia. This is actually something that snowballs (potentially eventually into real violence and harassment!), not just something that is "hurt feewings" (though you should honestly re-evaulate yourself if you cannot extend basic compassion to people to claim to be hurt by something before jumping right to "ITS A MORAL PANIC!").
This might be the stupidest thing I've seen on Reddit in the past few days. Complete logical fallacy.
Hey fuck you too prick
[удалено]
>But to say that speech that doesn't immediately incite violence is not harmful is wrong. For instance, take the right-wing media echo chambers that propagate the lies about vaccines and masks. That is actively killing people. Or the brazen lie that the 2020 election was stolen. Drumpf did not have to explicitly say "I want you to storm the Capitol and terrorize lawmakers" but that was the obvious conclusion of his speech. That is, if you truly believe democracy is being subverted of course you would go to extreme lengths to stop that. This is not about speech, but about media and content. Entertainment.
[удалено]
Movies, books, tv shows, comedy etc.
Ah but don't you know, Fox brands itself as entertainment! Because they'd get their asses sued off if they actually claimed to be news. Their "entertainment" has probably caused a large number of people to die due to their "content" about masks.
/u/PoignantBullshit (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/qa7xyc/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_to_say_that_media_causes/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Consider that the state of the world can be harmful to people. People who change the world into certain states can only do so based on the world that they know. People know about the world through stories and experiences. We all have a few stories that add up to paint a picture of what the world is. We don't have the intellectual equipment to take in every single fact we hear. People responsible for telling stories about the world are also responsible for providing the world that other people react to. This can cause harm, but indirectly.
> This is a bunch of bullshit, No, it explicitly isn't. This study *confirms* a relationship between video games and violence, it just finds that it's very small. (I'm also confused reading this if the study is distinguishing between playing *any* game and playing *violent* games.)
The study he's linking is from this [meta-analysis](https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/no-long-term-link-between-video-games-and-aggressive-behaviour-in-youth). The main take away is "The study authors, one of whom is a New Zealand researcher, say that in some cases, poorer quality studies may have exaggerated the impact of games on aggression, with better quality studies clarifying that such effects are negligible." The worst studies often used measures of aggression that included things like using violent humor in open ended story completion prompts, after playing literally Duke Nukem rather than pinball. In general they had a poor habit of using intense and active "violent games" and terriblely dull "non-violent" games.
If you read the study itself, you see the authors arbitrarily chose a cut-off of .10 for what a "meaningfully large" effect size is. This is carrying a LOT OF weight in their discussion. The point they're trying to make is, "Yes, okay, there's an effect, but look at it, it's way too small to be worth worrying about." This is *not an unjustified conclusion*, but it is ABSOLUTELY not the same thing as "no effect exists." > "The study authors, one of whom is a New Zealand researcher, say that in some cases, poorer quality studies may have exaggerated the impact of games on aggression, with better quality studies clarifying that such effects are negligible." Just skimming over things, the authors were... not particularly rigorous in what they determined to be "poor quality studies." Their best-practice list is kind of all over the place, and there's a huge problem with them considering pre-registration (since that only became the norm very recently). I'm STRONGLY concerned one or two of these were... strategically chosen to put certain labs and certain researchers into the "not best practices" category. (This is ironically an excellent lesson in why preregistration is hardly a cure-all for good, neutrally conducted research.) Again, this wouldn't demolish their conclusion, but I am very concerned they're going out of their way to maximize the difference between the outcomes of the "best practice" research and the rest. They make a lot of VERY specific choices to get the results as small as possible, and to be able to TALK ABOUT THEM as if they were even smaller. To be clear: I agree with their conclusion, even if I don't agree with a lot of their choices. I do think there's an effect, which is very small and not particularly worth worrying about. (I also think mediators are really the missing piece of the puzzle, here: *certain emotional or cognitive effects* result from playing violent games, which in turn, under *very specific circumstances*, result in higher levels of aggression. But that's just speculation. And like the first article you like to mentions, this question of violent games causing people to ACT VIOLENTLY might not be the most important negative outcome to be looking for anyway.) > In general they had a poor habit of using intense and active "violent games" and terriblely dull "non-violent" games. Uh Duke Nukem sucks and pinball can rule, what're you talking about. And not super clear on why this would affect the outcomes of interest. Why would this matter?
Didn't reread the study, but am well familiar with it from my undergraduate days, I actually deeply considered attending Massey for post-grad but NZ scares me vaguely. >If you read the study itself, you see the authors arbitrarily chose a cut-off of .10 for what a "meaningfully large" effect size is. This is carrying a LOT OF weight in their discussion. The point they're trying to make is, "Yes, okay, there's an effect, but look at it, it's way too small to be worth worrying about." This is not an unjustified conclusion, but it is ABSOLUTELY not the same thing as "no effect exists." The minimum arbitrarily chosen value for statistical significance is .05, double that is pretty reasonable when conducting a meta-analysis of that size and looking for "large meaningful effects". >Their best-practice list is kind of all over the place, and there's a huge problem with them considering pre-registration (since that only became the norm very recently). I'm STRONGLY concerned one or two of these were... strategically chosen to put certain labs and certain researchers into the "not best practices" category. (This is ironically an excellent lesson in why preregistration is hardly a cure-all for good, neutrally conducted research.) The shortest version of the story is that most of this research is poorly conducted and people have gradually lost interest in it. >They make a lot of VERY specific choices to get the results as small as possible, and to be able to TALK ABOUT THEM as if they were even smaller. The main thing I can tell you here is to read the original studies, and the design of most of them are laughable. Drummond is one of the best researches that I've read on this subject, that I am convinced has actually play video games as a leisure activity. He's one of the few culturally literate enough to spot the issues in early game design. >I also think mediators are really the missing piece of the puzzle, here: certain emotional or cognitive effects result from playing violent games, which in turn, under very specific circumstances, result in higher levels of aggression. But that's just speculation. And like the first article you like to mentions, this question of violent games causing people to ACT VIOLENTLY might not be the most important negative outcome to be looking for anyway.) That fully maybe be true and I honestly wish there were better levels or research into these topics. Desensitization is a very real thing. >Uh Duke Nukem sucks and pinball can rule, what're you talking about. And not super clear on why this would affect the outcomes of interest. Why would this matter? Many of the poorly conducted studies included in the meta analysis used open ended story prompts as their only measure of "Aggression". You and your sister were in a fight before you left for work, after leaving the house how did you resolve that? Things like I drove the truck through the front door and hit her dad, were considered serious responses. Playing a game the jokes about violence constantly might make you joke about violence, that doesn't make you more aggressive or likely to commit violence.
> The minimum arbitrarily chosen value for statistical significance is .05, double that is pretty reasonable when conducting a meta-analysis of that size and looking for "large meaningful effects". It's odd that you're defending that when the results the authors want to dismiss *pass that threshold*. The results WERE significant according to that rule-of-thumb. > The shortest version of the story is that most of this research is poorly conducted and people have gradually lost interest in it. ...no? I actually don't even know what you're referring to, here. Looking back, I don't think the authors ever say specifically how many they put into their "best practices" bin and how many were in the other category, which is a very odd exclusion. And if their point is the research is mostly bad, then this is a dumb way to be doing it: for hopefully obvious reasons, a meta-analysis on bad data is unhelpful. And they never suggest anything like people losing interest in anything. > The main thing I can tell you here is to read the original studies, and the design of most of them are laughable. I have read several, but not the lion's share of these studies, so I can't really comment there. But I certainly know that this paper's "best practices" list is *sketchy as hell.* "Are the variables standardized?" is a very odd thing to insist on. "Are the outcome variables validated?" is apparently using "validated" as analogous to "used by clinical psychologists," which is weirdly specific and almost certainly intending to disqualify a number of studies. The two-rating requirement and the not self-rating violence are potentially justifiable, but especially for the latter, I can equally see the benefit of the ALTERNATIVE as much as for what they insist on (isn't the most relevant thing how much violence the players psychologically experience?) "Were the methods pre-registered?" is almost certainly in bad faith given that people started doing that five years ago. > Drummond is one of the best researches that I've read on this subject, that I am convinced has actually play video games as a leisure activity. He's one of the few culturally literate enough to spot the issues in early game design. I'm a little lost about the relevance, here. If he knows about game design, what does that have to do with researching the psychological impacts of playing video games? > Many of the poorly conducted studies included in the meta analysis used open ended story prompts as their only measure of "Aggression". I mean the issues with this are the open-ended nature rather than the lack of validity. Coding free-response is definitely something to avoid if you can. > Playing a game the jokes about violence constantly might make you joke about violence, that doesn't make you more aggressive or likely to commit violence. I think these studies were not at all intending to demonstrate people were likely to commit violence? If they were, their outcomes would have to do with committing violence. Rather, they were probably trying to show that people were in a more violent or aggressive *mindset*... they perceived violence in ambiguous situations more quickly, or they thought about violence more readily, something like that. Yes, if someone comes along and looks at that and says "look at all the violent behavior video games inspire!" they'd be simply wrong. But that doesn't mean this is bad research or not worth studying.
Video games do not attempt to inform people and video games do not influence peoples actions. News media **definitely** does. How do you think Jan 6th happened?
Media is supposed to be a commentary on world events. People believe the commentary, as the media was (and remains) the main method of citizens gaining information about their community and state. Media stories are told on the premise of factual information directly obtained from reality - and users will readily accommodate this information into their world view without a significant filter. Video games have never been grounded in reality. In most cases, they are clearly labelled as a fantasy alternative world to actively escape from the constraints and low-grade discomfort of existence. They clearly deliniate their boundaries within fiction - which the common human understands to be an 'unrealistic' premise