Would young men be rioting in the streets if they didn’t have video games to pacify them?
Hear me out.
We are seeing record levels of young men unemployed and living with their parents: The future for them is bleak. Saddled with college debt, they can barely get a job that pays miimum wage, while living independently is forever out of reach.
I feel like at other points of history, there would be more social unrest, but things are exceedingly calm given the economics.
I was watching a video by Healthy Gamer, a gamer bro-turned psychiatrist. He points out that video games are very addictive and seductive because they MIMIC accomplishment. You can grind to get to the next level, you can gain new skills, you are continually put on a treadmill of constant progress. It’s very satisfying in a hollow way, satisfying in a way that might make you forget that society has nothing to offer you but debt and homelessness after you followed all the rules.
Are video games weapons of mass distraction, the metaphysical equivalent of a million Christians being fed to a million lions every day?
No, because humans have been around for thousands of years and video games have been around for less then 100.
OP’s short tempered (might be the video games) but correct that your reply doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t respond to his premise.
OPs premise is no video games = people rioting in the street.
A glance back at the time before video games that was in fact not the case. There were many times where rioting happened for good and bad reasons but the invention of video games did not quell riots.
The 80s was a time of many riots and video games existed then.
Best game of 1985:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rLl9XBg7wSs%3Ft%3D5m47s
Do you want to use that dizzying intellect of yours and look up adoption rates of just consoles between 1985 and 2026?
Edit: I’m entertained by the idea that there are people who disagree with me but can’t quite bring themselves to downvote Super Mario.
Is English your first language? Did you read the entire post? Are you capable of keeping more than one idea in your short term memory at a time?
Seems like a fairly extreme response to a valid point…
Me: “X and Y have always gone to together. Yet now we have X and Z but not Y. Coincidence?”
Your valid point: “Actually, we’ve only had Z for less than 100 years, so, no. Obviously.”
Legend for the reading-impaired:
X: Economic despair
Y: Social unrest
Z: Video games
Seriously, what the fuck, Lemmy?
It wasn’t my point…
What valid point were they making, then?
I’m not really getting the vibe that you’re interested in engaging constuctively here.
Not interested engaging with people with no reading comprhension, no.
When an initial premis is false and can be disproved by a cursory glance at history, no manner of supporting evidence will change the outcome.
You do seem to mimic human thought rather admirably, yet I don’t see you engaging with the full context of my question.