It reminds me of a discussion about griefing that I read about a few months ago on some internet forum. Naturally, the "real" players were mocking the "carebears" and the latter was levying the usual futile appeal to empathy.

Q: But don't you feel bad that you've just ruining someone else's experience?
A: Why should I feel bad?

Naturally, the "griefers" just couldn't understand this appeal to empathy. There's a reason for that. One of these "griefers" went on to try and reverse the appeal, arguing along these lines, "But you just don't understand the thrill of killing people in a game." It honestly made me think of a rapist. ("But you just don't understand the thrill I get from raping women.")

Honestly, I think that the biggest harm that we (those of us with empathy) do to ourselves is to diminish "griefers" by giving them a name like "griefers".

They already have a name.

The way to write that more honestly is this:

"If you want to be the best developer you can be, then you will have to give up spending time with your children."

Of course, that applies to every single professional field, not just programming. Do you want to fully excel at your career, or do you want to fully enrich your childrens' lives? You can't have both, and half-assing one will necessarily half-ass the other, because both of them demand nothing less than the most valuable currency you have: your precious time.

Priorities.

I sense you're being snarky, which isn't nice to do when playing with people's retirement. OF COURSE the money will be there when you retire.

Additionally, the retirement age will be 91 when you retire.

Enjoy your golden years! They're the best years of your life!

I am sure that the world has no shortage of people who are less intelligent than you.

My question to you us, are you blaming the victim? As in, placing fault on the victim for a failure to make good choices? If you are, then you are arguing, "The stupid deserve to suffer, and other people have the right to abuse them for being stupid." Which is exactly the argument that people who bilk money from elderly people on fixed incomes use. It's the argument that psychopaths use.

It is evil and illegal to deprive people of life, liberty, or property through force or fraud no matter how stupid they are and no matter how much the predator enjoys it. People who do that to others, no matter how stupid the victim is, deserve to be prosecuted by the state and preferably incarcerated where they can't harm others.

I pine for the days of /. having exactly 4143 members. It was cool as long as n==4143. It was all downhill after that.

That was ten years ago. The internet is weird.

This is where the conversation becomes deeper and more psychological. What is the line between moral corruption and violence? And, furthermore, is a child capable enough of understanding that not all violence is immoral?

For instance, were allied soldiers behaving immorally when they shot German soldiers? Meaning, if my son plays any number of WWII shooters, then is the violence "acceptable" because it involves winning by means of being an Allied soldier killing Germans? Or will that kind of play end up having a corrupting effect (aggression) anyway? I'm torn on this, but I lean toward "no violence".

(A more poignant example of moral violence that is beyond the scope of this discission is: Is a woman immoral for shooting a man trying to rape her?)

I won't chew you out because what you're suggesting is kind and helpful instead of condemning and critical.

Since I am a gay adoptive parent, I don't have the luxury of being merely a good parent. I have to be better than all the straight parents. This is because whatever troubles my son has are going to be attributed to his not having a "normal" family by some people. I dislike having that kind of pressure, but I accept the consequences of my choices. I don't think my son is ready for such an open-ended game like Black and White 2 yet. I have actually considered letting him watch the movie "Grave of the Fireflies" recently to show him that war isn't like a video game. Anyway, sorry to get too personal, but it's only to show you that I put deep consideration into the type of media that my son is exposed to. Is it impossible to have complete control over what he sees? Of course not. But I just don't have the latitude to be blase about it because the stakes are so high. Thanks for listening, and I hope you understand why I take all of this so seriously.

I noticed that as well. That said, his work isn't published on his personal website. It's published on the APA's web site and is therefore the APA's voice. I can conclude three things:

1. The APA vetted his work and considers it valid.

2. The APA did not vet his work, but let him post his work as the voice of the APA anyway.

Additionally, search for "video games" on the APA's search site and see what you come up with.

I want to test your own bias. Suppose a video game producer produced a game called "KKK Warrior" in which you got the take the role of a KKK member and go on missions to murder black people, blow up black churches, and assassinate black political leaders, all while top-notch voice acting related the "heroic struggle" against the [insert vicious racial slur here]. You would complete missions and earn rewards based on killing black people and destroying black property. Do you think that people who play this game would be more likely to become aggressive toward black people?

Raise your hand if you have any "Linux games" by Loki. /me raises hand

Not one single tear was shed for me. Not even by me.

That's because when Linux deprecates an interface, it doesn't put anyone out of a job.

Windows "backwards compatibility" is therefore welfare for lazy programmers -- welfare which puts all Windows users at risk.

I understand you, and I think it's fair to be skeptical. That said, go to the APA site and type in "video games" into the search box. They seem pretty one-sided on this issue. Do you think that carries any weight?

You and I are in complete agreement. If video games can have harmful effects on the psychology of children (and I think you and I agree that they can, given that you agree with me that my elementary school child should NOT play Grand Theft Auto), then parents ought to know about it. This is an issue of education, not tax dollars and definitely not lawsuits. But as long as it's an issue of education, I can't stand idly by while people say "playing GTA is harmless". I'm not looting anyone's tax dollars or suing anyone, and I strongly oppose anyone who wants to do that.

And, yes, I'm a little freaked out by lazy parents who don't give a shit and let their idle sons play games like "Grand Theft Auto". My son knows what it is and would *love* to play it, but he knows very well that I don't approve of him playing violent games or drawing violent pictures or engaging in violent play. A few years ago he found porn on DVD at a friend's house and watched it. (It belonged to his friend's dad.) And while I bemoan the fact that my son's innocence was taken away all at once and so quickly, I don't think that is nearly as harmful as my son being exposed to a video game like Grand Theft Auto, where you rack up points for kidnapping and murdering people in very life-like situations.

There's no doubt that my life has been enhanced by my choosing to help people, and I have been helped by people who cared for me. Likewise, I have been harmed by psychopathic people whose behavior you would cynically call "successful in modern society".

If you really do have such a pessimistic view of life, then please keep it far away from me. I try to keep my life filled with people who love life and are positive, not people who are negative and who suck the life out of people around them.

The answer is politically-incorrect regardless of your political stance.

So are mine. I have many more lessons to learn. But one of the most valuable things I realized is that simply by being assertive I could get my way. Many people choose to be passive. Not merely polite, but passive. The difference is subtle but crucial. Many people, when they're not suspicious, are waiting for other people to tell them what to do.

Additionally, I found out that if I didn't feel confident all I had to do was pretend, and it was just as good as the real thing.

So, in other words, maturity is not *solely* defined by how you look at and treat people, but ALSO by your capacity and willingness to change your beliefs based on new information?

Is there anything else you left out of your definition of maturity?

(I appreciate your de-linking of college degrees with intellectualism.)

How do they find the time to do that? I mean, one would thing they were pretty busy "spewing bigoted nonsense, pseudo-intellectual fallacy" while they are "living in their own dream-world". Am I completely missing the alleged "compassionate" and "understanding" side of you? To me, you come off as a pompous and excoriatingly-critical person.

No, it's a liberal book, written for liberals. It's not a conservative hit-job book. My recommendation was sincere. I think it would be the kind of book that, for you, would confirm all the things that you know are True(tm).

To be fair, I examined a "con" link, one that you would favor. The page is here:

http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html

And PBS claims:

2. (myth) Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression.

(fact) Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, "media effects." This research includes some 300 studies of media violence. But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds. In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context. Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand. Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played. Most studies found a correlation, not a causal relationship, which means the research could simply show that aggressive people like aggressive entertainment. That's why the vague term "links" is used here. If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor - when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences â" which can contribute to anti-social behavior. But no research has found that video games are a primary factor or that violent video game play could turn an otherwise normal person into a killer.

There are many things to say about PBS's critique.

1. PBS says, "Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, 'media effects.' This research includes some 300 studies of media violence."

PBS calls it "relatively narrow" as a comparison to other fields of study, but it's really a way to spin the body of research as small and insignificant. But 300 studies is 300 studies. How many studies did PBS conduct?

2. PBS says, "But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds."

Which studies? On what grounds? On what basis does PBS say that they are "inconclusive" when the APA's conclusions are plain for all to see? PBS does not say. This is a sweeping judgment of a body of research that comprises 300 studies.

3. PBS says, "In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context."

And what psychological effect would that have? PBS does not say. And which studies does this apply to? PBS does not say.

4. PBS says, "Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand."

Media is frequently "consumed" by people who would not "normally consume" it. Furthermore, on what psychological basis "understanding" media, specifically as it relates to witnessing acts of violence, germane? PBS does not say.

5. PBS says, "Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played."

The APA says:

Myth 3. Laboratory experiments are irrelevant (trivial measures, demand characteristics, lack external validity).

Facts: Arguments against laboratory experiments in behavioral sciences have been successfully debunked many times by numerous researchers over the years. Specific examinations of such issues in the aggression domain have consistently found evidence of high external validity. For example, variables known to influence real world aggression and violence have the same effects on laboratory measures of aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 1997).

6. PBS says, "If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor - when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences â" which can contribute to anti-social behavior."

I think the APA's consensus is pretty clear. Go here:

http://search3.apa.org/

Type in "video games" and see what comes up.

7. PBS says, "But no research has found that video games are a primary factor or that violent video game play could turn an otherwise normal person into a killer."

This is called "Moving the goalposts". The "myth" that PBS is trying to discredit is "Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression." Now they've changed it to be about turning otherwise normal people into killers.

I understand the bias of PBS. They are a media company and thus critical of people who would claim that media is culpable for influencing others into unsavory behavior. (Did "Triumph of the Will" have any effects on people, good or bad? Any at all?)

And I have no problem sharing my own bias as well. I'm a parent of an elementary school child. I think allowing him to play "Grand Theft Auto" would be very irresponsible. I think it would teach him ways of being cruel and aggressive toward others. I'd love for you to tell me why you think it's totally safe for me to let my elementary school child rack up huge rewards by murdering people in a very, very lifelike video game.