My Thoughts And Opinions On: Do Video Games Make People More Violent (Part 4)
Fox News, BulletStorm, and Pat Robertson
Continuing
from the last article, Phil DeFranco did a video montage of politicians
that were condemning video games. One of the very first things I noticed
was that all the clips featured in the montage was recorded from Fox
News (Why am I not surprised).
This news network, instead of researching and reporting a topic in an objective, unbiased light without commentary, are quick to demand people to pull out there pitchforks and torches and embrace the "video games are responsible for social decay" mentality whenever shootings like this occur. They will push this claim even if the scientific research conducted doesn't support their argument. A side is taken instead of remaining objective to the topic. This is also a contraction as the role of a news network is to report the news, not dictate it flow and and push it's own narrative on social topics.
Many, instead of doing a deep examination of the social, political, and economic factors effecting today's culture; are instead quick to search for scapegoats to pass the ills of society on. This has constantly occurred throughout modern history with mass media, with many blaming the following: jazz music (20's), the jitterbug dance crazy (30's-40s), pinball machines (30's-70's), comic books (50's), rock music (U.S. - 50's, U.K. - late 60's), slasher movies (70's-80's), video games (since the late 70's), disco (1979, talk about a massive overreaction to a harmless genre of music) heavy metal rock (80's), action movies (80's), hip-hop and rap music (since the 80's), etc. Several of these reactions to media (jazz, 50's rock, disco, and hip-hop,rap) were racially motivated in nature and rebranded as "moral decay" backlash to hide its racial overtones.
All these forms of media are products of their environment, not causation. Therefore, instead of examine the social/economic/heath issues in depth, many just found it easier just to pass that buck. It's easier just to find something to blame than to do a self-examination I guess. In the process, many jump on the "moral decay" bandwagon and cash in by publishing sensationalized hit pieces that lack in-depth research. With all the video game studies published in the past couple years now, many in very large numbers (me included) are now calling out those that push these ill-conceived pieces as "research".
This news network, instead of researching and reporting a topic in an objective, unbiased light without commentary, are quick to demand people to pull out there pitchforks and torches and embrace the "video games are responsible for social decay" mentality whenever shootings like this occur. They will push this claim even if the scientific research conducted doesn't support their argument. A side is taken instead of remaining objective to the topic. This is also a contraction as the role of a news network is to report the news, not dictate it flow and and push it's own narrative on social topics.
Many, instead of doing a deep examination of the social, political, and economic factors effecting today's culture; are instead quick to search for scapegoats to pass the ills of society on. This has constantly occurred throughout modern history with mass media, with many blaming the following: jazz music (20's), the jitterbug dance crazy (30's-40s), pinball machines (30's-70's), comic books (50's), rock music (U.S. - 50's, U.K. - late 60's), slasher movies (70's-80's), video games (since the late 70's), disco (1979, talk about a massive overreaction to a harmless genre of music) heavy metal rock (80's), action movies (80's), hip-hop and rap music (since the 80's), etc. Several of these reactions to media (jazz, 50's rock, disco, and hip-hop,rap) were racially motivated in nature and rebranded as "moral decay" backlash to hide its racial overtones.
All these forms of media are products of their environment, not causation. Therefore, instead of examine the social/economic/heath issues in depth, many just found it easier just to pass that buck. It's easier just to find something to blame than to do a self-examination I guess. In the process, many jump on the "moral decay" bandwagon and cash in by publishing sensationalized hit pieces that lack in-depth research. With all the video game studies published in the past couple years now, many in very large numbers (me included) are now calling out those that push these ill-conceived pieces as "research".
Bias (Social and Political Context Needs To Be Established First)
As most of
you know if you're familiar with my pieces, I'm not a particular fan of
Fox News for various reasons. I dislike Fox News for the same reasons
why I dislike MSNBC and CNN in general; because your only getting news
only from one perspective. All of these news outlets do have their
confirmed political slants, with CNN and MSNBC on the significant left
and Fox News on the significant right. I don't mind political bias as
long as the outlet in question has solid reputation for publishing
well-researched content (CBS News, The Guardian, The Wall Street
Journal, New York Times). However, one won't get well-research, highly
accurate news from the likes of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News among others (I
don't even consider the likes of Breitbart and TheBlaze as news, and who
in the hell would even using the terms "journalism" and "InfoWars" in
the same sentence, treating a phony like Alex Jones as a valid
commentator!).
When examining the mainstream news sources based on factual reporting, MSNBC and CNN usually score significantly lower compared to other TV news outlets ranked by MBFC (Media Bias Fact check) like CBS News, The BBC, NPR, AP. Fox News scores the lowest. Their have been various times that they passed off misinformation, partisan propaganda and fake news pieces as valid reporting.
When examining the mainstream news sources based on factual reporting, MSNBC and CNN usually score significantly lower compared to other TV news outlets ranked by MBFC (Media Bias Fact check) like CBS News, The BBC, NPR, AP. Fox News scores the lowest. Their have been various times that they passed off misinformation, partisan propaganda and fake news pieces as valid reporting.
One of the major issues with Fox News is that the vast majority of
the coverage of a topic is commentary that is being passed off as news.
As a result, someone could be tuning in and when they hear commentary
such as: "If I was a betting man, I say that he would probably logs 6-8
hours a day playing one of those Fortnite or one of those video games
where you're doing nothing but dehumanzing people....", you think that
it was actual news.
There might be a chance that the shooter might have played video games, but yet again, that evidence hasn't been provided to support this claim. In fact, recently, the idea of video game addiction as a mental disorder has become widely rejected because the conditions for it are often defined by other health and mental conditions, and not video games by themselves. It's real, but it's rare and is often brought on by other sources at play. In a case of Whataboutism, many will simply report the most extreme cases of video game addiction and pass those extremes as the mainstream in society.
A Call Of Duty reference was made in the shooter's manifesto. The shooter was declaring people to NOT treat life like a video game or act like a like a super-soldier featured in COD. Despite that, leave it to the talking heads on Fox News to misinterpret the COD reference and declare that video games drove the El Paso shooting, despite contrary evidence debunking this false claim.
Even if the shooter did play video games, some 20 years of
research has failed to find a decisive link between video games and
violence. Correlation does not equal causation as mentioned in previous
articles. As a result, one could make the very safe conclusion that if
the person in question did play video games, it was because it reflected
his interest. Thus, video games did not "cause" him to perform the act
of violence since those tendencies and prejudices were already their to
begin with.
There might be a chance that the shooter might have played video games, but yet again, that evidence hasn't been provided to support this claim. In fact, recently, the idea of video game addiction as a mental disorder has become widely rejected because the conditions for it are often defined by other health and mental conditions, and not video games by themselves. It's real, but it's rare and is often brought on by other sources at play. In a case of Whataboutism, many will simply report the most extreme cases of video game addiction and pass those extremes as the mainstream in society.
A Call Of Duty reference was made in the shooter's manifesto. The shooter was declaring people to NOT treat life like a video game or act like a like a super-soldier featured in COD. Despite that, leave it to the talking heads on Fox News to misinterpret the COD reference and declare that video games drove the El Paso shooting, despite contrary evidence debunking this false claim.
This wasn't the first isolated case of Fox News demonizing video
games. This outlet has a long history of publishing and airing hit
pieces (which is what all of these clips are). The news outlet still
embraces the early 90's mentality that only children play video games
(despite the average age of a gamer being 34 years old as of 2018). Fox
News pretends the ESRB doesn't exist because if they did acknowledge it,
their whole argument about video game violence would crash and burn in a
smoldering ruin.
Bulletstorm (I knew I would cover this eventually).
Bulletstorm, a game
created by both Epic Games and Polish game studio People Can Fly, and
published by EA; was released in 2011. A average FPS at best, it went
largely unnoticed until it was covered by Fox News. A psychologist,
Carole Lieberman, who is no stranger to media as she has made regular
appearances on news segments both and TV and radio talk shows; made the
sensationalized claim that Bulletstorm contained “sexual situations”
that lead to “real-world sexual violence”. A bold (and absurd) claim as
Bulletstorm doesn't have sexual content in it.
The Fox News piece got the attention of Rock-Paper-Shotgun, a UK-based game publication. They started their own investigation to examine Lieberman's "evidence" that she provided to back up her claims. To put it bluntly,her claims were complete garbage. On one hand, one could make the argument that young children exposed to this game could desensitize them to violence. However, this claim quickly becomes moot because Bulletstorm was clearly rated "M for Mature" and wasn't targeted for that age group to begin with.
All games published in this country have the ESRB rating clearly marked on them. As noted in the previous articles, the ESRB rating on video games is similar to the movie ratings issued by the MPAA so that viewers will have a general idea about the movies content and if it's suitable for that audience. The ESRB rating is clearly marked so that parents will have the general idea if the game's content is suitable and appropriate for them or those that their purchasing the game for.
Because the game was clearly rated, the responsibility of purchase falls on the parents.If a parent brought a game that was clearly marked for adults for his/her children, then this is the fault of the parent, not the publisher.One can't just purchase whatever game they want for their children, and then go back and blame it because the game was clearly rated denoting the game audience for that particular title.
Would one knowingly let their children watch a "X" rated movie? What makes videos games different? For parents, the exercising of caution when watching movies with a particular rating needs to be exercised with video games as well. The ESRB rating system has been widely used since 1994. Something that has to be brought up as of 2011, when the Bulletstorm controversy ensured (and now), it seems as Fox News is still in perpetual denial about its existence.
Carole listed eight sources to back up her claim.Of those eight sources used, only one of them actually had anything remotely to do with the topic that she was examining. The only source that actually had anything to do at all with the topic of video game violence in general. I can already come to the conclusion of why she did this. The vast majority of studies published covering the topic of video game violence contradict her findings. Their wasn't much for Lieberman to go on to begin with, and because of this, she had to vaguely interpret studies that were used and take them out of context to make her argument. The vast majority of the studies conducted couldn't find a link between video games and violence even after some 20 years of research. This was the issue that Carole encountered when she started her "research".
Lieberman also trivialized sexual violence in general by making the absurd claim that M-rated video games in general purposely promote it, even if the games in question doesn't contain such content. It's basically a guilty verdict due to negative public image and guilt by association. She used a title that didn't incorporate this type of content to make her argument. As someone who played various video games over the years, I can confirm how rubbish her argument is. As someone who played the living crap out of the various GTA games over the years, their are no missions that calls on you to assault women or beat/kill prostitutes. Virtually all of the claims of this nature were made by those that never picked up a controller in their life or never used a keyboard and mouse for anything outside of Microsoft Word.
The Fox News piece got the attention of Rock-Paper-Shotgun, a UK-based game publication. They started their own investigation to examine Lieberman's "evidence" that she provided to back up her claims. To put it bluntly,her claims were complete garbage. On one hand, one could make the argument that young children exposed to this game could desensitize them to violence. However, this claim quickly becomes moot because Bulletstorm was clearly rated "M for Mature" and wasn't targeted for that age group to begin with.
All games published in this country have the ESRB rating clearly marked on them. As noted in the previous articles, the ESRB rating on video games is similar to the movie ratings issued by the MPAA so that viewers will have a general idea about the movies content and if it's suitable for that audience. The ESRB rating is clearly marked so that parents will have the general idea if the game's content is suitable and appropriate for them or those that their purchasing the game for.
Because the game was clearly rated, the responsibility of purchase falls on the parents.If a parent brought a game that was clearly marked for adults for his/her children, then this is the fault of the parent, not the publisher.One can't just purchase whatever game they want for their children, and then go back and blame it because the game was clearly rated denoting the game audience for that particular title.
Would one knowingly let their children watch a "X" rated movie? What makes videos games different? For parents, the exercising of caution when watching movies with a particular rating needs to be exercised with video games as well. The ESRB rating system has been widely used since 1994. Something that has to be brought up as of 2011, when the Bulletstorm controversy ensured (and now), it seems as Fox News is still in perpetual denial about its existence.
Carole listed eight sources to back up her claim.Of those eight sources used, only one of them actually had anything remotely to do with the topic that she was examining. The only source that actually had anything to do at all with the topic of video game violence in general. I can already come to the conclusion of why she did this. The vast majority of studies published covering the topic of video game violence contradict her findings. Their wasn't much for Lieberman to go on to begin with, and because of this, she had to vaguely interpret studies that were used and take them out of context to make her argument. The vast majority of the studies conducted couldn't find a link between video games and violence even after some 20 years of research. This was the issue that Carole encountered when she started her "research".
Lieberman also trivialized sexual violence in general by making the absurd claim that M-rated video games in general purposely promote it, even if the games in question doesn't contain such content. It's basically a guilty verdict due to negative public image and guilt by association. She used a title that didn't incorporate this type of content to make her argument. As someone who played various video games over the years, I can confirm how rubbish her argument is. As someone who played the living crap out of the various GTA games over the years, their are no missions that calls on you to assault women or beat/kill prostitutes. Virtually all of the claims of this nature were made by those that never picked up a controller in their life or never used a keyboard and mouse for anything outside of Microsoft Word.
The Investigative Sleuths At RPS
Hard At Work Exposing The Stupid Absurd
Claims Made On Fox News!
Hard At Work Exposing The Stupid Absurd
Claims Made On Fox News!
As noted in the RPS
article, the game does have childish names for skill shots like
"topless" and "gang bang". Not exact tasteful, but far from the extreme
sexual violence that Carole is referencing. RPS went into full detective
mode to examine the sources that Fox News listed, and discovered that
they took the information presented out of context (again, why am I not
surprised) to turn their report into a hit piece.
Fox News interviewed those who conducted the studies that Carole referenced and presented what they "reported". I used the word reported in quotes because during their investigation, RPS also reached out to those same authors/researchers and discovered what they said was very different to what Fox reported. Fox News purposely changed their responses so they could to tailor their own narrative.
RPS reported there findings on there website and also presented them to Fox News for a response. Figuratively speaking, crap started to hit the fan for both Fox News and Carole Lieberman (Rightfully so, I might add). Carole made the absurd claim that referencing the term "topless" in a video game would cause people to go out and commit rape. Considering that cases of rape in this country have been in decline for several years now, I don't think that this empty claim holds up well, especially considering how much more widespread video games are now. What horribly offends me about this controversy is that despite the declining rates, rape is a very real issue, and this important topic is trivialized when Lieberman makes stupid sensationalize claims such as those presented on Fox News.
For trivializing an important topic like rape to absurdity, Carole deserved all the criticisms that she got. Lieberman responded that Fox News took her out of context. The irony in this controversy is that Fox News took the authors of the studies out of context, but yet, they didn't take her out of context. What she presented in her research was what Fox News reported.
The general consensus at Fox News after RPS presented their findings was that: Yes, Carole should have done better research, but even then, we will still tell parents that video games are the devil, regardless of whatever contradictory scientific evidence and research is presented.
As a news outlet, they have a responsibility to present news in a objective light to a audience and let them decide how to interpret that news. Fox News commits a farce when it abuses it reporting power to manipulate people to a certain viewpoint or dictate the narrative presented.
Fox News interviewed those who conducted the studies that Carole referenced and presented what they "reported". I used the word reported in quotes because during their investigation, RPS also reached out to those same authors/researchers and discovered what they said was very different to what Fox reported. Fox News purposely changed their responses so they could to tailor their own narrative.
RPS reported there findings on there website and also presented them to Fox News for a response. Figuratively speaking, crap started to hit the fan for both Fox News and Carole Lieberman (Rightfully so, I might add). Carole made the absurd claim that referencing the term "topless" in a video game would cause people to go out and commit rape. Considering that cases of rape in this country have been in decline for several years now, I don't think that this empty claim holds up well, especially considering how much more widespread video games are now. What horribly offends me about this controversy is that despite the declining rates, rape is a very real issue, and this important topic is trivialized when Lieberman makes stupid sensationalize claims such as those presented on Fox News.
For trivializing an important topic like rape to absurdity, Carole deserved all the criticisms that she got. Lieberman responded that Fox News took her out of context. The irony in this controversy is that Fox News took the authors of the studies out of context, but yet, they didn't take her out of context. What she presented in her research was what Fox News reported.
The general consensus at Fox News after RPS presented their findings was that: Yes, Carole should have done better research, but even then, we will still tell parents that video games are the devil, regardless of whatever contradictory scientific evidence and research is presented.
As a news outlet, they have a responsibility to present news in a objective light to a audience and let them decide how to interpret that news. Fox News commits a farce when it abuses it reporting power to manipulate people to a certain viewpoint or dictate the narrative presented.
Pat Robertson
For spiritual
leaders, their is the responsibility of being honest with those that
embrace your words. Honest that's often betrayed when the vast majority
of these leaders will often exploit their positions for the goal of
pushing their views as "Biblical Teaching". Misusing their spiritual
positions, they will often promoting outlandish conspiracy theories not
rooted in Biblical teaching or reality (Philadelphia Trumpet, ie.
Christian InfoWars) and often incorporating politics and religion
together to get some weird fundamentalist-looking institution that reeks
of theocracy (freedom only for those who conform to our views). They
often forget that Christianity is a spiritual movement which was never
intended as being political in nature. That doesn't stop them from
redefining Christianity in that context, thus tainting its reputation
and distorting the teachings of Jesus in the process.
These spiritual leaders will often ignore there own ethical and moral shortcomings and instead of holding themselves accountable for whatever issues are effecting congregations; they will instead pass the buck and conveniently blame various boogeyman for various issues. Boogeymen such as mass-media, secularism, "Evil Liberals", and in this case, video games. They will make vague blanket statements without providing concrete evidence to back up those statements and push social fallacies as facts.
Pat Robertston instantly came to mind as I went through that description. One thing that he has in common with the vast majority of the Televangelist (other than redefining Christianity on their own terms and manipulating the teachings of Jesus for their own purpose) is that he has business pursuits with diverse media interest. Pursuits that often go into very dark realm. He has scammed people out of money constantly over the decades. He has provided financial support to African dictators for mining interest. Despite these contradictions, that doesn't stop him from being the thought police, oops, I meant spiritual pillar for many.
He gets a lot of donations from his viewers, and as a result, this is where a massive amount of his financial support comes from. As a result, it's in his best interest to arouse controversy. Not the "I'm controversial because I follow Jesus" banter throw around by pious, self-righteous idiots to make themselves look holy (thus treating Christianity as a label), but actual controversy.
If Pat Roberston went on his show and declared that violent crimes, youth crimes, rape and abortion rates were at a 40-50 year low, teen pregnancy rates were at their lowest rates ever recorded, and incorporated actual facts, statistics, and research into his content; his audience would become alienated and he would loose his job.
If he told his audience that the Twilight series of books was annoying, but yet, harmless teen crap instead of occult indoctrination; his audience go mental and give his studio a total makeover with the aid of pitchforks and torches (one has as much a chance of becoming a vampire by reading Twilight as someone becoming a ape by watching Planet of The Ape). He looks for the latest scapegoat and boogeymen to demonize. How else will he make his money? Despite their being no evidence (and no, sensationalized stories from random sources doesn't count) or statistics linking suicides to D&D, he will make the empty blanket stating that it does. Blanket statements that have no evidence to support, but yet believed by many at face-value without research just because Pat says so. Who's the real vampire in this story!?
His audience thinks that video games are the devil, so he will promote this narrative and run with it, despite the lack of evidence supporting his ideas. Pat will declare that video games are destroying humanity and causing the destruction of Western Civilization. At this point, I don't know if he believes his own rubbish or if it's simply a staged act. Regardless though, it's largely irrelevant due to what his audience embraces at face-value. Like Fox News, even if statistical and/or scientific data comes along debunking whatever claims he promoting, Pat will dismiss these findings as rubbish and continue promoting his worldview.
He is the host of the 700 Club which airs on CBN, where he speaks on various topics, including video games. He stated that killing a person in a video game is the same as killing someone in real-life. Digital 0's and 1's are the same as real blood now apparently to him. If that's the case, if I decided to included the number of people that I killed in Doom I,II Hell on Earth, III, Wolfenstein 3D (Does killing Nazis and Robo-Hitler multiple times count in my favor), Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Civilization(I get carried away with nukes)I, II, IV, and V (I never got into Civ3), F.E.A.R., Half-Life, Counter-Strike, GMOD (I got carried away with the nuke cannon too! I think there's a pattern), the various Sim City games (I love the disaster simulations), Unreal Tournament and Quake 1, 2, and 3 (Both real players and bots), NAM, WW2GI (Killed more worthless Nazis), Battlefield, COD (More Nazis killed, I think theirs's a another pattern forming), and the entire GTA series (Minus V which I haven't gotten around to playing yet. I'm a busy person alright!); I've killed more people than Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and the British East India Company combined, and then plus some. Ummmm... I played Crysis as well, so does killing extraterrestrial beings in the virtual realm the same as killing them in real-life despite their existence not being proven (yet)?
These spiritual leaders will often ignore there own ethical and moral shortcomings and instead of holding themselves accountable for whatever issues are effecting congregations; they will instead pass the buck and conveniently blame various boogeyman for various issues. Boogeymen such as mass-media, secularism, "Evil Liberals", and in this case, video games. They will make vague blanket statements without providing concrete evidence to back up those statements and push social fallacies as facts.
Pat Robertston instantly came to mind as I went through that description. One thing that he has in common with the vast majority of the Televangelist (other than redefining Christianity on their own terms and manipulating the teachings of Jesus for their own purpose) is that he has business pursuits with diverse media interest. Pursuits that often go into very dark realm. He has scammed people out of money constantly over the decades. He has provided financial support to African dictators for mining interest. Despite these contradictions, that doesn't stop him from being the thought police, oops, I meant spiritual pillar for many.
He gets a lot of donations from his viewers, and as a result, this is where a massive amount of his financial support comes from. As a result, it's in his best interest to arouse controversy. Not the "I'm controversial because I follow Jesus" banter throw around by pious, self-righteous idiots to make themselves look holy (thus treating Christianity as a label), but actual controversy.
If Pat Roberston went on his show and declared that violent crimes, youth crimes, rape and abortion rates were at a 40-50 year low, teen pregnancy rates were at their lowest rates ever recorded, and incorporated actual facts, statistics, and research into his content; his audience would become alienated and he would loose his job.
If he told his audience that the Twilight series of books was annoying, but yet, harmless teen crap instead of occult indoctrination; his audience go mental and give his studio a total makeover with the aid of pitchforks and torches (one has as much a chance of becoming a vampire by reading Twilight as someone becoming a ape by watching Planet of The Ape). He looks for the latest scapegoat and boogeymen to demonize. How else will he make his money? Despite their being no evidence (and no, sensationalized stories from random sources doesn't count) or statistics linking suicides to D&D, he will make the empty blanket stating that it does. Blanket statements that have no evidence to support, but yet believed by many at face-value without research just because Pat says so. Who's the real vampire in this story!?
His audience thinks that video games are the devil, so he will promote this narrative and run with it, despite the lack of evidence supporting his ideas. Pat will declare that video games are destroying humanity and causing the destruction of Western Civilization. At this point, I don't know if he believes his own rubbish or if it's simply a staged act. Regardless though, it's largely irrelevant due to what his audience embraces at face-value. Like Fox News, even if statistical and/or scientific data comes along debunking whatever claims he promoting, Pat will dismiss these findings as rubbish and continue promoting his worldview.
He is the host of the 700 Club which airs on CBN, where he speaks on various topics, including video games. He stated that killing a person in a video game is the same as killing someone in real-life. Digital 0's and 1's are the same as real blood now apparently to him. If that's the case, if I decided to included the number of people that I killed in Doom I,II Hell on Earth, III, Wolfenstein 3D (Does killing Nazis and Robo-Hitler multiple times count in my favor), Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Civilization(I get carried away with nukes)I, II, IV, and V (I never got into Civ3), F.E.A.R., Half-Life, Counter-Strike, GMOD (I got carried away with the nuke cannon too! I think there's a pattern), the various Sim City games (I love the disaster simulations), Unreal Tournament and Quake 1, 2, and 3 (Both real players and bots), NAM, WW2GI (Killed more worthless Nazis), Battlefield, COD (More Nazis killed, I think theirs's a another pattern forming), and the entire GTA series (Minus V which I haven't gotten around to playing yet. I'm a busy person alright!); I've killed more people than Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and the British East India Company combined, and then plus some. Ummmm... I played Crysis as well, so does killing extraterrestrial beings in the virtual realm the same as killing them in real-life despite their existence not being proven (yet)?
Conclusion
What I find
troubling about Pat Roberston is that like other personalities like Alex
Jones, he has die-hard supporters that won't think on their own, and
will nod their heads up-and-down at whatever claim he makes without
fact-checking them. Pat Roberston is beyond criticism in their eyes and
can do no wrong. He is no longer a mere mortal. Theirs's no objectivity
or difference of opinion. Pat is right and unless if you agree with him,
then you're wrong. He lives by empty blanket statement. Those that
embrace him forgets that's he a business man, and the spiritual pursuits
is virtually non-existent. Many will embrace whatever claims he makes
and throw money at him in the process, regardless of the facts. Pat
Robertson will manipulate his role and use it to demonize anything that
he doesn't agree with, and then pass off his opinion as "Biblical
teaching".
Like Pat Robertson, Fox News will manipulate their position as well to push a false narrative that's not embraced on any factual data. Yet, many will blindly embrace the words of the talking heads as valid info, and form a negative opinion about video games not based on actual information because it conforms to their worldview.
Like Pat Robertson, Fox News will manipulate their position as well to push a false narrative that's not embraced on any factual data. Yet, many will blindly embrace the words of the talking heads as valid info, and form a negative opinion about video games not based on actual information because it conforms to their worldview.
Gaming addiction probably isn’t a real condition, study suggests
New Scientist
WWW.NEWSCIENTIST.COM
WWW.NEWSCIENTIST.COM
Bulletstorm - Fox News Controversy
Wikipedia
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Will Bulletstorm Murder Your Children? (No)
ROCK PAPER SHOTGUN
WWW.ROCKPAPERSHOTGUN.COM
Statistics Show Drop In U.S. Rape Cases
Washington Post
WWW.WASHINGTONPOST.COM
Bulletstormgate: Analysing The "Evidence"
ROCK PAPER SHOTGUN
WWW.ROCKPAPERSHOTGUN.COM
Remember when Fox News tried to take on Bulletstorm?
ROCK PAPER SHOTGUN
WWW.ROCKPAPERSHOTGUN.COM
Rape in the United States
Wikipedia
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Pat Robertson
Wikipedia
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Pat Robertson - Controversies
Wikipedia
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Pat Robertson: ArcheAge, Dungeons & Dragons Lead To Demonic Possession
RIGHTWINGWATCH
WWW.RIGHTWINGWATCH.ORG
Pat Robertson: Video Game Killing, ‘Virtual Sins’ Are Like Murder (VIDEO)
HUFFPOST
WWW.HUFFPOST.COM
My Thoughts And Opinions On: Do Video Games Make People More Violent
Kixmiller Pigeon
RKIXMILLER.DUDAONE.COM
RKIXMILLER.DUDAONE.COM
My Thoughts And Opinions On: Do Video Games Make People More Violent (Part 2)
Kixmiller Pigeon
RKIXMILLER.DUDAONE.COM
My Thoughts And Opinions On: Do Video Games Make People More Violent (Part 3)
Kixmiller Pigeon
RKIXMILLER.DUDAONE.COM
Editors Note
On one hand, I
admit that the "kill count" paragraph was me having fun. However, my
criticisms of him are based on actual merit. Many though will see
criticisms of him though (despite being based objectively on actual
merit)and see it as either a personal assault or a attack on faith
(embracing the cheapen, sensationalized click-bait terms so prevalent
now) and claim this piece as persecution, conforming to the modern,
cheapened, watered down umbrella term of persecution where someone
claiming Christian suffering because they their was a difference of
opinion or worldview (instead of like....you know , people being
verbally/physically assaulted due to beliefs. A vague redefining that
does a massive disservice to those in the world that actually are
assaulted due to their beliefs. I'n not going down that topic though, at
least not in this post).
This is one of the massive issues of modern, American Evangelical Christianity. Despite the fact that the group has never held so much power before, they are quick to label themselves as downtrodden victims that weaponize their faith to silence anyone with differences of opinions on various topics. Christianity is redefined as something that it was never meant to be (a political movement) and thus, slanted and biased political and social views (often rooted in stereotypes and prejudices) are passed off as "Biblical teachings". Non-controversies are at the forefront (is <insert latest controversy> actually a thing, or are people just saying that it's a thing), with the Conspiracy Gospel replacing the actual Gospel. Spirtual leaders will make blanket statements without providing the context to support those statements. Rejecting the role of spiritual outreach for "though police" instead, any topic that enters the crosshairs becomes a target, regardless of what the facts, data, and statistics note. They will demonize it because it conforms to their worldview or that of their personality. Thus, if Pat Roberston will tell his followers that video games are the devil, they will blindly embrace the narrative because he says.
This is one of the massive issues of modern, American Evangelical Christianity. Despite the fact that the group has never held so much power before, they are quick to label themselves as downtrodden victims that weaponize their faith to silence anyone with differences of opinions on various topics. Christianity is redefined as something that it was never meant to be (a political movement) and thus, slanted and biased political and social views (often rooted in stereotypes and prejudices) are passed off as "Biblical teachings". Non-controversies are at the forefront (is <insert latest controversy> actually a thing, or are people just saying that it's a thing), with the Conspiracy Gospel replacing the actual Gospel. Spirtual leaders will make blanket statements without providing the context to support those statements. Rejecting the role of spiritual outreach for "though police" instead, any topic that enters the crosshairs becomes a target, regardless of what the facts, data, and statistics note. They will demonize it because it conforms to their worldview or that of their personality. Thus, if Pat Roberston will tell his followers that video games are the devil, they will blindly embrace the narrative because he says.
Comments
Post a Comment