fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2285 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2285 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[NCIS]

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

[Kirk Cameron]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Lindsay Lohan, Sean Penn, Sean Bean]

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

[MCU/Marvel movies - NOT the comics]

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

10. [SPOILERS for Spartacus War of the Damned]

__________________________________________________

11. [SPOILERS for Dangan Ronpa]

__________________________________________________

12. [SPOILERS for The Walking Dead]

__________________________________________________

13. [SPOILERS for House MD]

__________________________________________________

[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

14. [WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

15. [WARNING for abuse]

[the beatles]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #326.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Eh, as long as something exists there will be people who judge those who like the thing that exists. Saying something, "is for children" is just an easy way to judge someone.

With video games I'm just kind of ticked that the judging isn't consistent. "It's for children." "It's a murder simulator." "It's only for boys." "It's for people with low attention spans." Like, some of these things can't overlap. For example, either they're murder simulators or they're for children. Pick one.

All I'm asking is that they be consistent in their stupid judging.

I think the hysteria surrounding FPS games is that they are murder simulators for children. Murder simulators for adults, well, that's just fine and dandy. And there's a grain of truth to that: modern military shooters are practically GI Joe for the modern age to the young boys who play them, but the adults who play them are playing them for different, entirely grown up reasons: stress relief being chief among them.

That said I judge people who judge people for playing games pretty hard. They'd better not have any hobbies in that case. Their lives should consist entirely of working, investing, cleaning the house, and childcare. If they do.... well, uh, good job Most Boring Person Alive, at least you're not a hypocrite.

That's true. I've just also heard about people complaining about it because they feel it could teach adult who are unstable how to use guns. Then those adults will then use the knowledge to go shoot people in real life. I'm just thinking of a few news reports I was listening to recently, they kept mentioning the video games the killers played.

Technically cleaning the house could be considered a hobby. So they better not do that either.

It really amazes me that the "video games teach you to shoot" argument continues to survive. That's like saying playing Guitar Hero will teach you to play guitar, only even stupider because controllers don't even look like a damn gun.

I am surprised too. I mean, how is a controller and a gun anything alike?

That said, there are shooting simulators that use controllers shaped to be like certain guns. But those things are used by, like, the military and for some reason you never hear anything about them.

But oh no, when a video game is teaching people how to shoot the people making the accusation always point to Call of Duty or something and I just can't fathom their logic.

In their defense the beginners in my firearms course who played video games were much more accurate shooters than the beginners who hadn't.

...Because video games have been, well, you know, scientifically proven to improve eye-hand co-ordination and reflexes, to the point where they've been recommended by health professionals to older people in whom both of those are waning.

But no! Scurrrrrry video games teaching our children to be child soldiers. CoD is all about simulating waiting around doing nothing and shitting in a bag, after all.

True, it helps with that, but the way people talk about it makes it seem like it's the equivalent of getting practice on a shooting range.

Yeeessssss. I love how you can immediately tell who has and who hasn't play video games based on how they critique/view them.

News reports involving shooters nowadays will almost always talk about the (invariably FPS) video games that said shooters were playing. What they don't mention is how many people play those games and aren't planning on even owning a gun, much less shooting somebody, or what other games that aren't gun-related the shooters were playing. It's a false correlation - you may as well argue that cell phones or soda were a factor in their killing spree.

Oh I'm well aware. I play video games myself.

Video games are the new rock n' roll.

What they also neglect to mention is that these shooters are almost always young men, and almost all young men these days play those games. You might as well blame porn.

You might as well blame porn.

Don't give the pearl-clutching alarmists any ideas. :\

There are plenty of people around whose lives do consist of working, childcare, caring for their homes, and trying to plan for the future. They're lucky to have enough time to sleep. The idea that they're boring for not having hobbies--or that hobbies are what makes your life interesting, not your work or your home or family--is pretty pathetic, and fairly juvenile.

Yes, but those situations are generally temporary (as a result of having very young kids, being at the crux of one's career, etc.) and said people do have hobbies - they're just presently on hold. They get back into said hobbies when they have a chance, not wring their hands about how those hobbies are "childish" and "a waste of time".

All people need time for themselves.

Not to realize that is pretty pathetic, and fairly juvenile.

I'm aware that time for oneself is a basic need; in the society we live in, it's also a luxury that not everyone has. Besides, for a huge number of people, family time, or time spent caring for their home, is their "me time."

But my point is that our hobbies are immaterial in the grand scheme of things, icing on the cake; it's our life's work, the way we handle our responsibilities, and the way we contribute to our communities, that make our lives worthwhile and ourselves interesting. On the other hand, it's very typical of children, adolescents, and nominal adults who don't want to grow up, to dismiss all that as "boring."

No, it's very typical of children, and adolescents, to desire to appear very grown up by denying any trappings of childishness, or youth, even the kind that remain beneficial throughout one's lifetime. Of course our interactions with others at work or in the family are extremely important. But we are not the sum of what we do to others - we must grow as individuals and develop our own interests, as well. Dismissing that as unnecessary and simply the "icing on the cake" of life is truly juvenile, friend.

Maybe I just don't move in the right circles, but I don't exactly see many children and adolescents falling over themselves to appear very grown up by giving up fun things and taking on adult responsibilities. On the other hand I see plenty of twentysomethings actively avoiding adult responsibilities. But it's how we deal with those responsibilities that make us grow as individuals. And there are even some hobbies that help us to grow as individuals, but video games aren't among them.

there are even some hobbies that help us to grow as individuals, but video games aren't among them

That isn't even remotely true.

On the contrary, I've learned things about myself, improved myself, challenged myself, experienced high art, and made and improved important social connections by playing them.

These things, like so much else, are what you make of them. If you choose to squander these opportunities when you yourself play games, it doesn't mean that they aren't there.

[ SECRET POST #2285 ]

Re: Video games are for kids?

Re: Video games are for kids?

Re: Video games are for kids?

Re: Video games are for kids?

Re: Video games are for kids?

Re: Video games are for kids?

Re: Video games are for kids?

Re: Video games are for kids?

Re: Video games are for kids?

Re: Video games are for kids?

Re: Video games are for kids?

Re: Video games are for kids?

Re: Video games are for kids?

Re: Video games are for kids?

Re: Video games are for kids?

Re: Video games are for kids?

Re: Video games are for kids?