4 ms·

Why video games and not movies or TV? Why not books or music? And why is church a positive moral construct? Maybe I want my kid playing Stardew Valley to counte

Why video games and not movies or TV? Why not books or music? And why is church a positive moral construct? Maybe I want my kid playing Stardew Valley to counteract all the violent fire and brimstone they're getting from the Old Testament. Hell, why not their own history textbooks? France at least one prominent example of a violent revolution that's looked on positively in retrospect! (Of course, when you're the leader of the ruling class, no challenge to the current status quo could possibly be positive in your eyes). The thing with pinning the blame on any one thing like this is that it betrays one's own biases. Macron grew up without video games like we have today, so they're his go-to culprit — it obviously can't be the violent things I grew up with, I turned out fine, didn't I?

layer8 3y ago
> Macron grew up without video games like we have today, so they're his go-to culprit Video games were already made a culprit in the 80s and 90s, when Macron was a kid and a teenager (he’s 45). I’m pretty sure he’s aware of that.
dfxm12 3y ago
Why video games ... ? He said this so people argue about whether or not videogames make kids violent instead of question why cops are shooting unarmed kids. It was a distraction. It appears to be working.
- LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
  > why cops are shooting unarmed kids. Which unarmed kid? A car is a deadly weapon if you've been driving it through crosswalks at high speed. If your family had been in that crosswalk you'd be complaining about the lack of policing.
  - JamesLeonis 3y ago
    So cops should kill every driver they suspect of being dangerous?
    - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
      Every driver who was fleeing at high speed through civilians, and who attempts to do it again, yes. Absolutely. It's literally the time they're supposed to shoot. I'll quote US law here because it's in English, but it's pretty much the same worldwide. > "1-16.200 - DEADLY FORCE - Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person." Fleeing wouldn't be enough, but fleeing in a car after reckless driving that already endangered civilians is.
      - JamesLeonis 3y ago
        Were these men speeding through civilians or fleeing dangerously when they were shot? https://thegrio.com/2021/08/29/footage-of-police-shooting-man-who-was-asleep-gilmore/ https://thegrio.com/2021/08/29/footage-of-police-shooting-ma... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/12/willie-mccoy-shooting-vallejo-police-55-shots https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/12/willie-mccoy... Before you answer... Do you want others to make the same excuse as you if you were shot by the cops?
        LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
        > Were these men speeding through civilians or fleeing dangerously when they were shot? No, the men in your stories were sleeping in their cars. One was shot 55 times. The driver in France had just been witnessed fleeing through civilian traffic and crosswalks. They saw him commit a crime and try to flee to continue risking others' lives. He was shot once, only when he tried to escape. What do you think these stories have in common? > Do you want others to make the same excuse as you if you were shot by the cops? If I was risking other people's lives by fleeing from police and used deadly force to try to escape, then yeah. It's not "an excuse", it's their literal job. They tried to detain him peacefully.
      - ibejoeb 3y ago
        Additionally, he ran through the cop that was propped up on the hood and windshield of the car. We hear the engine rev up, and he accelerates away. It's egregious. For even more context, here's the specific relevant part of french law for this type of vehicular situation (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000034107970 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000...) is: "les conducteurs n'obtempèrent pas à l'ordre d'arrêt et dont les occupants sont susceptibles de perpétrer, dans leur fuite, des atteintes à leur vie ou à leur intégrité physique ou à celles d'autru" meaning, "drivers do not comply with the stop order and whose occupants are likely to perpetrate, in their flight, harm to their lives or bodily injury or to those of others"
  - jakelazaroff 3y ago
    Comments like this are why I don't really buy the "distraction" framing. Folks will bend over backwards to find any pretext justifying the murder of people they don't like, no distraction necessary.
    - ibejoeb 3y ago
      Maybe in some circumstances, sure. There is good reason not to like this person, who demonstrated the will and ability to hurt or even kill innocent people.
      - jakelazaroff 3y ago
        By fleeing the police who murdered him? I appreciate that you can’t drop the façade for even a moment or the whole house of cards comes tumbling down, but I just want you to know that no one is actually fooled.
        ibejoeb 3y ago
        That's a lot of metaphors and innuendo. Can you explain a bit more plainly?
        jakelazaroff 3y ago
        Sorry, not trying to use innuendo! I’m explicitly saying that you’re using a post hoc justification for Nahel Merzouk’s murder because you’d already decided that it’s okay for police to murder people like him.
        LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
        What does "people like him" mean, is that some racist dog whistle? > you’d already decided that it’s okay Before I heard his race, yes. Based on the fact that he'd risked people's lives before they stopped him and he was trying to flee to do it again. The police gave him a warning and a chance to surrender. > to murder [him] Shooting a violent criminal to prevent imminent further violence is the epitome of justification. > I just want you to know that no one is actually fooled. I assure you, no fooling, that I'd support shooting whatever color of criminal was driving the car. My thoughts are with the pedestrians they nearly hit and those people's families, and the police officers who risked their safety to stop him.
p3rls 3y ago
It's too early to say whether the French Revolution was positive or not
- usui 3y ago
  https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00018657;jsessionid=1964743619F0942115DC9A5108BCF7C4 https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/978019...
mcpackieh 3y ago
> Why video games and not movies or TV? Why not books or music? There's no dichotomy, all of these things effect the people who experience them. Whether this is harmful or for the best is highly subjective, and depends a lot on the specific nature of the experience. But regardless, to say that somebody can read books and not be at all effected by those books is absurd. If that were the case, if reading books were nothing but a NOOP waste of time that had no effect on the reader, then why does our culture encourage people to read? We encourage people to read because books do change people and most people think it's a net positive. Nonetheless, it is possible that books in general are a net positive, but some books might be a negative influence on people (and others, an unusually positive influence.) Video games aren't special in this regard. They, like anything people might experience, will influence those that experience it. Whether this influence is for the better or worse overall is highly subjective (which is why most people aren't very keen on empowering censors who lack nuance.)

layer8 3y ago

> Macron grew up without video games like we have today, so they're his go-to culprit Video games were already made a culprit in the 80s and 90s, when Macron was a kid and a teenager (he’s 45). I’m pretty sure he’s aware of that.

dfxm12 3y ago

Why video games ... ? He said this so people argue about whether or not videogames make kids violent instead of question why cops are shooting unarmed kids. It was a distraction. It appears to be working.

LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
> why cops are shooting unarmed kids. Which unarmed kid? A car is a deadly weapon if you've been driving it through crosswalks at high speed. If your family had been in that crosswalk you'd be complaining about the lack of policing.
- JamesLeonis 3y ago
  So cops should kill every driver they suspect of being dangerous?
  - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
    Every driver who was fleeing at high speed through civilians, and who attempts to do it again, yes. Absolutely. It's literally the time they're supposed to shoot. I'll quote US law here because it's in English, but it's pretty much the same worldwide. > "1-16.200 - DEADLY FORCE - Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person." Fleeing wouldn't be enough, but fleeing in a car after reckless driving that already endangered civilians is.
    - JamesLeonis 3y ago
      Were these men speeding through civilians or fleeing dangerously when they were shot? https://thegrio.com/2021/08/29/footage-of-police-shooting-man-who-was-asleep-gilmore/ https://thegrio.com/2021/08/29/footage-of-police-shooting-ma... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/12/willie-mccoy-shooting-vallejo-police-55-shots https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/12/willie-mccoy... Before you answer... Do you want others to make the same excuse as you if you were shot by the cops?
      - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
        > Were these men speeding through civilians or fleeing dangerously when they were shot? No, the men in your stories were sleeping in their cars. One was shot 55 times. The driver in France had just been witnessed fleeing through civilian traffic and crosswalks. They saw him commit a crime and try to flee to continue risking others' lives. He was shot once, only when he tried to escape. What do you think these stories have in common? > Do you want others to make the same excuse as you if you were shot by the cops? If I was risking other people's lives by fleeing from police and used deadly force to try to escape, then yeah. It's not "an excuse", it's their literal job. They tried to detain him peacefully.
    - ibejoeb 3y ago
      Additionally, he ran through the cop that was propped up on the hood and windshield of the car. We hear the engine rev up, and he accelerates away. It's egregious. For even more context, here's the specific relevant part of french law for this type of vehicular situation (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000034107970 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000...) is: "les conducteurs n'obtempèrent pas à l'ordre d'arrêt et dont les occupants sont susceptibles de perpétrer, dans leur fuite, des atteintes à leur vie ou à leur intégrité physique ou à celles d'autru" meaning, "drivers do not comply with the stop order and whose occupants are likely to perpetrate, in their flight, harm to their lives or bodily injury or to those of others"
- jakelazaroff 3y ago
  Comments like this are why I don't really buy the "distraction" framing. Folks will bend over backwards to find any pretext justifying the murder of people they don't like, no distraction necessary.
  - ibejoeb 3y ago
    Maybe in some circumstances, sure. There is good reason not to like this person, who demonstrated the will and ability to hurt or even kill innocent people.
    - jakelazaroff 3y ago
      By fleeing the police who murdered him? I appreciate that you can’t drop the façade for even a moment or the whole house of cards comes tumbling down, but I just want you to know that no one is actually fooled.
      - ibejoeb 3y ago
        That's a lot of metaphors and innuendo. Can you explain a bit more plainly?
        jakelazaroff 3y ago
        Sorry, not trying to use innuendo! I’m explicitly saying that you’re using a post hoc justification for Nahel Merzouk’s murder because you’d already decided that it’s okay for police to murder people like him.
        LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
        What does "people like him" mean, is that some racist dog whistle? > you’d already decided that it’s okay Before I heard his race, yes. Based on the fact that he'd risked people's lives before they stopped him and he was trying to flee to do it again. The police gave him a warning and a chance to surrender. > to murder [him] Shooting a violent criminal to prevent imminent further violence is the epitome of justification. > I just want you to know that no one is actually fooled. I assure you, no fooling, that I'd support shooting whatever color of criminal was driving the car. My thoughts are with the pedestrians they nearly hit and those people's families, and the police officers who risked their safety to stop him.

p3rls 3y ago

It's too early to say whether the French Revolution was positive or not

usui 3y ago
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00018657;jsessionid=1964743619F0942115DC9A5108BCF7C4 https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/978019...

mcpackieh 3y ago

> Why video games and not movies or TV? Why not books or music? There's no dichotomy, all of these things effect the people who experience them. Whether this is harmful or for the best is highly subjective, and depends a lot on the specific nature of the experience. But regardless, to say that somebody can read books and not be at all effected by those books is absurd. If that were the case, if reading books were nothing but a NOOP waste of time that had no effect on the reader, then why does our culture encourage people to read? We encourage people to read because books do change people and most people think it's a net positive. Nonetheless, it is possible that books in general are a net positive, but some books might be a negative influence on people (and others, an unusually positive influence.) Video games aren't special in this regard. They, like anything people might experience, will influence those that experience it. Whether this influence is for the better or worse overall is highly subjective (which is why most people aren't very keen on empowering censors who lack nuance.)