@simt33 @l777l She should be criticized. She fails to distinguish between misogynistic creators and misogynistic content. Further, even the accordance with stereotypes she construes to be misogynistic. With all this, she attacks the freedom of artists, and the freedom of those who read, watch, and play. She does not avoid attacking those who create the games and those who enjoy them for what they are: fiction that deals with evil, with human nature, and passion.
If her standards of what is morally good and despicable (for we are talking about "hatred of women") were to be applied by every individual and interest groups in pursuance of their own goals (just rely on "objectification"), there'd be no room for enjoyment left, since everything can be construed to be offensive by those who are paranoid, hysteric, or simply malevolent.
(Her fundamental belief in there being a homogeneous ruling class [men, essentially] that opposes a homogeneous ruled class [women, essentially] is nothing more than a belief, likely wrong even under most subjective criteria.)
@miranda246 @l777l So you're making a general point, treating the whole of humanity as a collective, and just highlighting those who happen to play games.
What you have in mind then, is not a commitment to a certain view, but a commitment to the pursuit of excellence. Is that accurate?
@miranda246 "But the most important thing that should be wanted from ALL of us who love consoles and graphics and virtually jumping from planes is our COLLECTIVE voice."
Yes, we should all say the same thing, or vote for some one to represent us. We, "gamers". The notion of a "gamer" is absurd to begin with. This is not some identity-giving thing. We movie-goers, we book-readers, we restaurant-goers. There is no broad collective.
@LADIES_MAN_2013 @stamina_brown "Yeah, we know that. But the reason why this feedbackula video was made is not because of the backlass at the review, it's because of the backlash at the reviewer."
The review's flaws are characteristic of the person. They are constant. Petit condemns others and seeks to limit their freedom, in less than modest ways. It's unsurprising that this provokes animosity. Her animosity meets animosity.
@Deon101sky "To be frank I was most upset with the GTA review not because of the score, but the fact that we have lost our sense of acceptance. When a reviewer some one who is trying to help you and give you as much information on a game (...)."
When a reviewer persistently distorts and misinterprets information, then this is neither helpful nor worthy of acceptance.
@Heshertonfist Of course it's advisable to reflect on violence. That's what literature and movies, as well as games are for.
As for the effects of violent video games, assuming that they do increase the manifestations of minor day-to-day aggression, they may decrease the eruption of major violent outbursts. It's the familiar 'outlet' idea. This scientist did not mention successful long-term research into that. He merely mentioned a potentially negative interpretation.
Some people run with scissors - presumably because they come from bad homes - and hurt themselves. Bye-bye scissors. Fatty food kills those who do not have the discipline to maintain a balanced diet. Bye-bye fatty food. (Well, a difference is that these guys hurt themselves, not others directly.)
'We can make it more difficult to get access to them. We can strengthen our laws against teens acquiring these games.' The problem appear to be mentally ill adults. It's unlikely that video games cause mental illness. And when you bring mentally ill adults (as opposed to teenagers) into contact with violent video games, the effects will likely unfold.
Looking at the number of deaths and the at best small influence of violent video games, severely restrictive measures are not acceptable. Whatever steps taken would have to be much less restrictive than the regulations of alcohol.
l777l's comments