Downtown Rumbles: Sharp's Scotch Bar

[Cody]

And this is the loser that Siren thinks is scarier than Zoom.

God he's such a dumb villain. Every other main villain before him had a reason for being so formidable. Either because they had assassin training and years worth of prep(Merlyn and Chase), or have been around for centuries and have amassed a huge amount of resources and power because of it(Ras, and Damian), or have been turned insane due to being stuck in a shipping cargo alone for years on end while being such a super computer genius that he puts Felicity and her dad to shame(Cayden). Yet somehow a random street thug can give Oliver a better fight than any of those guys, has as much resources, and is just as smart in his own way. And his motives are basic as well, all he wants is to take control of the city. His reason for being insane are absurd, as his childhood wasn't even much worse than mine(guess I can qualify for being the next Arrow villain!).

[Guy1]

[Sharpandpointies]

Pretty much.

Outside of certain specific appearances, Cass has always been drawn as short and somewhat wiry. Muscular-wiry. Even Ed Benes, who is rather appalling in his depiction of women, drew her as a thin, small person, rather than with his usual ridiculous proportions.

And when she has been drawn with a big chest, yeah, her fans have made a mockery of it, and complained rather bitterly. I know -- I was posting in Batgirl forums at the time, and was one of said complaining fans.

[Cody]

Actually, like many things, that will depend on the research one chooses to follow. Being fair, there has been plenty of research that concludes the opposite. The idea that it has been 'proven' either way isn't something that stands up when one looks at the vast amount of conflicting research.

Most conflicting research has been debunked, and there is far more research that suggests it does not cause any harm than there is to say it does. So yeah, it has basically been proven by unbiased researchers that aren't trying to distort facts to fit their political narrative.

One needs to choose, in this case, what one believes.

I'll take quality and quantity over a few pieces of research that contradicts the majority that proves it doesn't. There has been years worth of research that is repeatedly backed up by more research that proves video games have little to no impact on how we see the world and do things. Those trying to prove otherwise? Not so much.

Just because Cass was brought up, I'm going to note that Cassandra Cain has actually never really been drawn in the manner that has been discussed, here. The only times she has come close has been in guest issues, like in Teen Titans appearances. It's a poor example.

The point of me bringing her up is because most people care more about how their characters act than how they look.

[Guy1]

God he's such a dumb villain. Every other main villain before him had a reason for being so formidable. Either because they had assassin training and years worth of prep(Merlyn and Chase), or have been around for centuries and have amassed a huge amount of resources and power because of it(Ras, and Damian), or have been turned insane due to being stuck in a shipping cargo alone for years on end while being such a super computer genius that he puts Felicity and her dad to shame(Cayden). Yet somehow a random street thug can give Oliver a better fight than any of those guys, has as much resources, and is just as smart in his own way. And his motives are basic as well, all he wants is to take control of the city. His reason for being insane are absurd, as his childhood wasn't even much worse than mine

I mean, Ricardo is honestly the kind of punk Punisher would put away in the opening of an episode.
Season 1 Oliver would've turned him into a pincushion by now.

(guess I can qualify for being the next Arrow villain!).

[Sharpandpointies]

Most conflicting research has been debunked, and there is far more research that suggests it does not cause any harm.

Don't see a lot of that on the wiki, and I suspect I would were that the case. I mean, yeah, it notes some of them being challenged, etc. So again - research shown both directions. You can believe what you want.

But stating unequivocally that it has been proven? Sure, if that's the case for you. Given the evidence in both directions, don't expect everyone to agree with you.

I'll take quality and quantity over a few pieces of research that contradicts the majority.

Looking over that list, just from Wikipedia, I don't really see 'a few pieces'.

See, again, when there's conflicting research, you get to pick which view point and which debunking you like.

I'm not expecting you to change your viewpoint, but to come in here and say 'it's proven' as if that is the only valid idea? No thank you.

The point of me bringing her up is because most people care more about how their characters act than how they look.

Read my followup after Guy's post -- when she was drawn 'wrong', people bitched and complained on the forums, myself one of said people. The simple matter with Cass is that she was rarely if ever drawn in that way, so again, it's a poor example.

[Guy1]

[Cody]

Don't see a lot of that on the wiki, and I suspect I would were that the case. I mean, yeah, it notes some of them being challenged, etc. So again - research shown both directions. You can believe what you want.

But stating unequivocally that it has been proven? Sure, if that's the case for you. Given the evidence in both directions, don't expect everyone to agree with you.

Basically those who disagree are wrong as they are following faulty research. The wiki isn't going to show you everything. Plus you have to look at the sources of said research and you'll see that there are far more scholarly and intellectual research that says it doesn't than those who say they do. And there is more debunks of the "research" that says it does than there is that says it doesn't.

Looking over that list, just from Wikipedia, I don't really see 'a few pieces'.

See, again, when there's conflicting research, you get to pick which view point and which debunking you like.

This isn't a grey issue where you pick what you want to believe. There is a right and wrong and those who say it causes damage are wrong. Those are the facts supported by far more research than the detractors. By this form of logic, anything proven by research must be suspect because there are a few pieces that disagree with it, even though experts don't support the detractors. I follow the majority that has decades worth of research to back it up than the one that doesn't. And most people do that, which is why when anytime someone makes a fuss about video games, they are usually quieted down real quick because they aren't right.

Most detractors are using theories to support their argument. Those against have actually researched into the topic and base their opinions on that.

Read my followup after Guy's post -- when she was drawn 'wrong', people bitched and complained on the forums, myself one of said people. The simple matter with Cass is that she was rarely if ever drawn in that way, so again, it's a poor example.

It's not because my example of her was to point out how people cared more about who she was than how she looked, which is why people are so angry over how different she is now.

[Cody]

Another point is that most "research" done that says videos increase aggression were years ago. Most research that concludes it doesn't are after the year 2000. So the more we learn, the more we find out that it causes less harm than we originally believed, as the wiki link you provided shows. In other words: most recent research says it doesn't. And the few that due are noted as being biased with researchers already having an opinion on the topic prior to starting said research.

[The Arbiter]

Actually, like many things, that will depend on the research one chooses to follow. Being fair, there has been plenty of research that concludes the opposite. The idea that it has been 'proven' either way isn't something that stands up when one looks at the vast amount of conflicting research.

One needs to choose, in this case, what one believes.

Confirmation Bias is the technical term.

Anyways, both the Surgeon General and the American Psychology Association have gone on record saying "sure a correlation technically exists, but its super small and has no real evidence to suggest increased crime or delinquency so meh".

Good enough for me! *continues teabagging newbs in halo*

[Guy1]

[Sharpandpointies]

Basically those who disagree are wrong as they are following faulty research. The wiki isn't going to show you everything. Plus you have to look at the sources of said research and you'll see that there are far more scholarly and intellectual research that says it doesn't than those who say they do. And there is more debunks of the "research" that says it does than there is that says it doesn't.

If the detractors had so much good, peer-reviewed evidence, I rather suspect that would be posted on the wiki as well, as the wiki DOES go into challenges to the research. Being in the scientific field, I can say that good research tends to be promoted. Yes, even on Wikis, since that is usually the first place people hit for information on that.

But I suspect you'll have an answer for that as well. That's fine. I'm not trying to convince you - it's pretty clear you have made your choice on the matter, which is fine.

This isn't a grey issue where you pick what you want to believe.

Oh, I quite agree, myself. But you're going to pick what you're going to pick.

There is a right and wrong and those who say it causes damage are wrong. Those are the facts supported by far more research than the detractors. By this form of logic, anything proven by research must be suspect because there are a few pieces that disagree with it, even though experts don't support the detractors. I follow the majority that has decades worth of research to back it up than the one that doesn't. And most people do that, which is why when anytime someone makes a fuss about video games, they are usually quieted down real quick because they aren't right.

That's interesting, and your choice.

I've looked into some of the research from time to time - admittedly, it's not a hobby of mine - and looked at my own experiences in the world and how things have changed, and yeah, I'm pretty happy with the conclusion. And the research I have looked into.

It's not because my example of her was to point out how people cared more about who she was than how she looked, which is why people are so angry over how different she is now.

It's still a poor example, Cody. People didn't hop up and down about her being drawn 'sexualized' because she wasn't. The times when she was drawn sexualized? People did get annoyed, so yes, people DO care about characters' physical appearances.

But I'm seeing it's pretty clear you're not going to accept that. Nor the other stuff. So...nice talking with you. Last word is all yours.

[Cody]

For example; here is the last experiments from your link:

For Primary studies: "In 2016, a preregistered study of violent video game effects concluded that violent video games did not influence aggression in players.^[19] The preregistered nature of the study removed the potential for the scholars to "nudge" the results of the study in favor of the hypothesis and suggests that preregistration of future studies may help clarify results in the field."

Meta-analyses: "A 2015 meta-analysis of video game effects suggested that video games, including violent games, had minimal impact on children's behavior including violence, prosocial behavior and mental health.^[74] The journal included a debate section on this meta-analysis including scholars who were both supportive^[75] and critical^[76][77] of this meta-analysis. The original author also responded to these comments, arguing that few coherent methodological critiques had been raised.^[78] In 2016, Kanamori and Doi replicated the original Angry Birds meta-analysis and concluded that critiques of the original meta were largely unwarranted.^[79]"

fMRI: "Further, other studies have failed to find a link between violent games and diminished brain function. For example, an fMRI study by Regenbogen and colleagues suggested VVGs do not diminish the ability to differentiate between real and virtual violence.^[84] Another study from 2016 using fMRI found no evidence that VVGs led to a desensitization effect in players.^[85] In a recent BBC interview, Dr. Simone Kuhn explained that the brain effects seen in prior fMRI studies likely indicated that players were simply able to distinguish between reality and fiction and modulate their emotional reaction accordingly, not becoming desensitized."

Studies on the effect on crime: "Other studies have examined data on violent video games and crime trends more closely and have come to the conclusion that the release of very popular violent video games are causally associated with corresponding declines in violent crime in the short term. A 2011 study by the Center for European Economic Research^[101] found that violent video games may be reducing crime. This is possibly because the time spent playing games reduces time spent engaged in more antisocial activities. Other recent studies by Patrick Markey^[102] and Scott Cunningham^[103] have come to similar conclusions."

So most recent studies(which is always the most reliable as more advanced research methods and technology is released)say it doesn't do any damage at all, and if it does it's negligible, and it may even help decrease crime.

[Sharpandpointies]

Side note - thanks to Arbiter's comment, I've had a look at further stuff, and will warrant that there's certainly weighting these days toward video games NOT causing issues.

Live and learn, I suppose.

[Sharpandpointies]

For example; here is the last experiments from your link:

For Primary studies: "In 2016, a preregistered study of violent video game effects concluded that violent video games did not influence aggression in players.^[19] The preregistered nature of the study removed the potential for the scholars to "nudge" the results of the study in favor of the hypothesis and suggests that preregistration of future studies may help clarify results in the field."

Meta-analyses: "A 2015 meta-analysis of video game effects suggested that video games, including violent games, had minimal impact on children's behavior including violence, prosocial behavior and mental health.^[74] The journal included a debate section on this meta-analysis including scholars who were both supportive^[75] and critical^[76][77] of this meta-analysis. The original author also responded to these comments, arguing that few coherent methodological critiques had been raised.^[78] In 2016, Kanamori and Doi replicated the original Angry Birds meta-analysis and concluded that critiques of the original meta were largely unwarranted.^[79]"
fMRI: "Further, other studies have failed to find a link between violent games and diminished brain function. For example, an fMRI study by Regenbogen and colleagues suggested VVGs do not diminish the ability to differentiate between real and virtual violence.^[84] Another study from 2016 using fMRI found no evidence that VVGs led to a desensitization effect in players.^[85] In a recent BBC interview, Dr. Simone Kuhn explained that the brain effects seen in prior fMRI studies likely indicated that players were simply able to distinguish between reality and fiction and modulate their emotional reaction accordingly, not becoming desensitized."

Studies on the effect on crime: "Other studies have examined data on violent video games and crime trends more closely and have come to the conclusion that the release of very popular violent video games are causally associated with corresponding declines in violent crime in the short term. A 2011 study by the Center for European Economic Research^[101] found that violent video games may be reducing crime. This is possibly because the time spent playing games reduces time spent engaged in more antisocial activities. Other recent studies by Patrick Markey^[102] and Scott Cunningham^[103] have come to similar conclusions."

So most recent studies(which is always the most reliable as more advanced research methods and technology is released)say it doesn't do any damage at all, and if it does it's negligible, and it may even help decrease crime.

Okay, then that's fair. I'm still not fully decided, as further research might show something different, but if evidence is now pointing in that direction, that does shade things differently for me now. Thank you for the clarification.

Mea culpa.