Yea, telling you it is fun to shoot people has no effect at all other than casual fun... telling you climate change isnt real also has no real effect.

The sort of people that would kill will kill whether thry played the video game or not. The sort of people that will deny science will deny science whether they heard some bozo doing it or not.

@freemo IIRC, obviously your statement is correct at one level. Many studies have shown pretty strongly that there's no causal link between, say, violent video games and real-life violence. But I think the relatively-recent rise in anti-Asian violence (a subject near and dear to my heart) points to a much subtler effect.

My hypothesis is that when X number of isolated people harbor anti-Asian hatred (for example), but all of society is collectively telling them that's wrong, they mumble and grumble and keep their hatred to themselves, but when that same number of people are no longer isolated, but find themselves supported in large numbers by something like a large online community, a prominent political leader, or both, well, clearly the mask comes off, and the violence becomes very real.

This is why people are rightly (IMO) worried about the limits of speech on the internet.

Another example: there have been people angry at the government for decades, but it seems like it took Facebook connecting them and feeding them information they wanted to see about how to act on that hate, plus a prominent political leader spouting related nonsense, for them to travel to Washington DC and try to overthrow the government.

Seeing hateful nonsense isn't going to turn you or me into a hateful person. It isn't going to turn anyone who isn't already hateful into a hateful person. But leaving it available provides a very thin patina of credibility, and since information on the internet is not generally divorced from the people posting it, it also provides a means of social connection when left in place.

One angry hateful person is a person. Angry hateful people online are literally the basis of a violent armed mob.

This is why I'm actually finding myself more and more against an "anything goes" policy online, while still very strongly supporting free speech in person.

If you're willing to stand on a street corner and speak what you believe is true, anybody that is willing to be seen associating with you can do so, and I don't think anybody should interfere. If you want to print a crank newsletter and pass it out, go ahead. In this is freedom!

But it takes nothing, less than nothing, to post nasty stuff online, where it lives side-by-side in the same interface with good information, granting it that very thin patina of credibility I mentioned, and associations are anonymous or hidden until it's too late.

I don't think that's so simple. I think all of this [waves at everything] demonstrates that.

@pwinn @freemo

For everyone violent video games are harmless or for the right ages? E.g. a 18+ video game is harmless for people at least 18 and older.

@freemo @pwinn

Do you have any research supporting your opinion? I would like to read about them.


To my broad recollection, there's been a bunch of research on the subject, but since neither Freemo's post nor mine was really *about* that except tangentially, perhaps you'd find more satisfaction with a search?

For example, the first result from that seems to suggest views are mixed with regard to young people and violent video games.

Of course, this runs into the issue of correlation vs causation, which is always thorny and won't be solved in a comment thread.



Its also an issue if post hic ergo procter hoc. People with violent tendencies are likely to play more violent games and enjoy it more. Nonviolent people may find them less interesting




Same reason gay marriage is illegal in some countries... because some people vastly out of touch with reality have some very backwards ideas


Β· Β· 2 Β· 1 Β· 1

@freemo @pwinn I think I, as a Muslim, am one those with backwards ideas and so is my Christian friend :)


Assuming you mean video games and not gay marriage then no big deal. Most people have at least a few backwards ideas. If the worst you have going for you is you think kids shouldnt play violent video games then you are well ahead of the curve.

Now if you think gay people should be legally denied the right to marry who they wish, now thats a pretty cruel opinion that would be far worse, but again, most people have a few nasty opinions, doesnt make it right, but all i can do is hope people who think that one day learn not to be cruel, and until then ill do my best to change their mind.



And just to put it out there, of my many dozens of muslim friends every single one of them supports the right for other people to enter i to gay marriage. Many feel that it woukd be wrong for thry themselves to be gay ir marry the same sex, none of them woukd ever be such a monster as to deny that for others, especially when nothing in their religion requires them to impose their personal choices on others.


@freemo @pwinn it was for gay marriage. As we had a discussion earlier, according to Quran anal sex between two men is forbidden. There are many things however which are forbidden like stealing an this but not everything which is forbidden also preventing from it is enforced. For example drinking or using anything which draws one out of its usual self, like alcohol or cigarettes, is forbidden. but drinking alcohol has punishment only if you go in public while you are drunk.


The quran at no point says that you have tonforce other people to follow the quran... so if you follow the quran according to the book it is only forbidden for you.

Dont try to blame your disgusting oppression of others on the quran which says nothing of the sort.


@freemo @farooqkz @pwinn Hm, can one ot the christians or someone who has read that book of theirs tell me if it says to oppress others in any way?
About the quran i heard often that it is ok in this way, but about the bible i have no idea. Too many loonies spouting silly stuff.

Anyway, Muslims following the quran are nice. Those not following it, eh, not real muslims anyway. Just agressive people, get in line with like 4 billion others...


I'm a practicing Christian, and I can tell you that Christ very much is *not* about oppressing others. He went pretty far out of his way to explain that his kingdom was wholly separate from the political kingdoms of this world. He repeatedly gave voice to the voiceless and defended the defenseless. He never said anything at all about the hot-button political topics of his day, including some that are still topics today, and when pressed, told those pressing him to pay attention to their own lives rather than the lives of others, and to stop judging others, but rather judge themselves only.

Christianity grew under oppression, and doesn't seem to adapt well to being wielded by those in power.


@pwinn @freemo Oh, i grew up in an area where many swear loyalty to the abstract christ, but where no fanaticism takes place (like seen in some country i heard about).
Christians are a diverse bunch. Everyone does their own thing, pulling what they will from scriptures. Some are nice, and pull nice things. Some are mean, and pull mean things. Those are usually those that ignore stuff that is forbidden, but whatever.
What i was asking about, specifically, was if converting others is in any (even if you don't like it) part of the bible. Is it?


Yes, converting others is part of the Bible, both by instruction and example. The instruction (and example) is basically for Christians to live in such a way that people will ask them why they have hope, and that then Christians can respond with the reason for that hope, so that others can then become Christians as well.

Because of issues with English translations, many Bibles include the instructions with a more direct imperative: "Go and do," rather than "As you go, do," but that's still about things like ensuring that every person can read the Bible in the language that's most comfortable for them, or going door-to-door asking if people would like to hear some good news. Which all seems very reasonable to me!

There is nothing about oppressing people, or killing those who don't agree to convert, etc. It's just not there at all. But proselytizing is.

Hope that helps!


@pwinn @freemo Oh, so your personal interpretation says "be happy, let people come to you"? I guess we're cool then. I like you.
Shame about those wrong translation people though. Just like that, human togetherness ruined.


There's a passage in Peter's first letter to Christians that says:

"Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. 'Do not fear their threats, do not be frightened.' [quoting another source] But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to given the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. For it is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil."

I think about that a lot when I observe American evangelicals, many of whom seem to get every single sentence of that wrong.

I don't think bad translation is really the problem, and I probably shouldn't have even mentioned it. Even with things spelled out clearly in a chapter that begins "Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble," people still claim to be living as Christians while not being sympathetic or compassionate or loving, or humble.

Jesus once responded to a question by saying that the two very most important things, the things on which everything else depends, were to love God, and to love your neighbor. Since so many "Christian leaders" I see don't seem to be doing the second thing, it's hard for me to believe they're doing the first thing well, either.


@pwinn @freemo I think the problem is people worrying over scriptures and not over real-world problems.

Well, i don't really. There is so much bad faith arguments, the real problem is people that are absurdly rich and killing us all. But let's ignore that for a moment.

Living close to one another poses problems, and we need to invest energy into that.
Worrying what someone might have said at some time will not solve the problems of today.

I value if someone is eager to discuss actual problems. I do see this in you, and for that, i like you.

But returning to the thing i said to ignore for a moment... the moment has passed.

Don't pretend that any religion could resolve this. It will not be believable even to the most impressionate.

We have a very real and very destructive problem, right here. You are above oppressing people anyway, you have demonstrated that.

So what the fudging fudge are we doing about those that kill us for their own greed?

I would hope that there was some way to communicate better, but i guess facebook and the "algorithm" has disabused me of that notation. Psychology works, if it is abused to steer the masses. Not if it is used to bring relief.

I really am out of ideas, i am at my most vulnerable. What can we do to stop suffering?


I don't know how to stop suffering. I'm not sure it's ultimately possible.

I don't think Christianity offers an end to suffering, for example. I already posted a notable passage that says basically: if you're gonna suffer, make sure you're suffering for the right reasons and not your own shitty behavior. And that's it!

All I know how to do is:

1. Try to not cause any more suffering.

2. Encourage people who are suffering.

I know people have encouraged me when I was really suffering, and eventually it seemed to help. And I don't mean online, either! I mean they showed up at my house and made me get out of bed and sat with me while I suffered until I wasn't suffering any more.

I think it's a one-by-one thing that doesn't scale up with mass communication. Which puts relief at a disadvantage, of course, since it's pretty easy to cause suffering on a widespread basis.

But hey, one by one, slowly we do what we can.


@pwinn @freemo Ok, second take, reading it again: "doesn't seem to adapt well to being wielded by those in power"
Heh, first bunch i talked about i guess. Your saltiness about this is a nice thing to hear.

@farooqkz @freemo @pwinn Wait, are you implying marriage means penetrative sex? Not so, i say. People marry for a lot of reasons, often enough they do not even have any sex at all!
Would you deny two bodily disabled people their love if they cannot do the deed?

@freemo @farooqkz @pwinn Yep yep yep, feeling this american out of touch but need to decide anyway here. Some words are censored on many websites, and it's not us Europeans doing it.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.