this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2023
163 points (87.2% liked)
/kbin meta
639 readers
1 users here now
Magazine dedicated to discussions about the kbin itself. Provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics. ---- * Roadmap 2023 * m/kbinDevlog * m/kbinDesign
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So before those studies came out, you support banning violent video games?
What you are attempting to arrive at is The Gamer's Dilemma, which has also been discussed at a scholarly level.
The normalization of underage imagery, as discussed in the aforementioned dilemma, also discussed scholarly extensively, does have a correlation with increased viewing of imagery that does have victims (correlation does NOT mean that every single person end up viewing the additional imagery, just that there is a correlation statistically).
You asked me if I would have wanted to ban violent video games before the publication of the studies on them, but the thing is that I wait for information and studies before making decisions on things, and the have been studies on this topic.
What exactly is that google scholar search meant to prove? I realize it's been discussed, I just don't have the links off hand.
Yeah there have been studies. They either say "we don't know", or they show it can prevent pedophiles from acting on their urges.
Is exactly the point. There's a correlation between people who look at real child porn to people who look at animated child porn. That's just incredibly obvious, but tells us absolutely nothing about whether it's helpful or harmful.
You are telling me that you do not find it telling at all that there was no correlation between playing violent video games and aggressive/violent behavior but there is a correlation between viewing the animated content (which, as some higher in this thread are meant to represent characters of age - sometimes supposed to be 5000 years old - but appear childlike) to then viewing CP?
A) why should that be obvious? It's different forms of media. Why should anyone assume that those who want to look at real CP want to look at anime/animated CP? Just because anyone looks at any porn, would you assume they appreciate animated porn? Why would you make these assumptions?
B) this is about the comparison between the correlation between viewing of animated images and the lack of correlation of the video games playing. Both of these hypotheses provided situations in which there are victims and searched for a potential warning signs to identify a precursor to the activity. The are many aggressive/violent illegal crimes studied, and many people that play violent video games, but there is not a statistically significant overlap. Those that are violent have other precursors as warning signs. If this were the same for these animated images, those images would have their own audience while those that view CP with real victims would have a completely separate audience without a statistically significant overlap. Instead, there is a correlation, and very vocal defenders that continue to normalize it, which deepens the issue, providing more support to this that view CP and exploiting those harmed even more and normalizing it more.
undefined> You are telling me that you do not find it telling at all that there was no correlation between playing violent video games and aggressive/violent behavior but there is a correlation between viewing the animated content (which, as some higher in this thread are meant to represent characters of age - sometimes supposed to be 5000 years old - but appear childlike) to then viewing CP?
That's not at all what the science shows. There is correlation with violent people liking violent media. There's no correlation or causation that people in general are more violent when they watch violent media. It's the same thing.
Do you really not understand or are you just being purposefully obtuse.
And pedophiles don't?
Why do you assume they don't? You're begging the question here by assuming that people who look at loli are attracted to real children. Do you think people who fantasize about rape are into real rape?
Why are you just making things up? Why does there have to be 0 overlap? People who are attracted to real children are likely going to be into animated children. But people who are into animated children don't necessarily have to be into real children. Are all furries into bestiality? Is everyone who has a crush on judy hopps going to fuck a rabbit? That's the same comparison here. Anime looks nothing like humans, and it's not at all unreasonable to be into fantasy anime bullshit who just happen to be drawn in a manner that somewhat reflects a child doesn't mean anything about real life
You and others keep saying this. Explain this "normalization". What does that even mean in terms of its effect on real life and victims.
EXACTLY!!! That's it being a statistically significant precursor is the issue!
"precursor"? Precursor to what? What's the issue exactly? Not sure how that comment relates to what I posted