O'Reilly's no video game spin zone

This comes from a total perv with a loofa obsession.

And how serious do I take Bill O'Riley? Not at all. I consider myself pretty conservative, and I listen to talk radio all day while I'm at work. G. Gordon Liddy, Phil Valentine, Neil Bortz, Mike Savage (He's more independent, though), sometimes Rush Limbaugh, and even my local talk shows, I'll listen to. But when Bill comes on, I change the station.

O'Riley was a movie reviewer in Dallas before FOX news found him.... Total hypocrite.

NoHitHair:

So you want to ban someone because they have a differing opinion than you do, and because they don't have a bibliography at the end of thier posts?

Get out of my country!

screw Bill O' Reilly! Michael Savage all the way! The Savage Nation! He dont kiss up to anybodys ass!

"At least those channels report the news. Unlike Fox that reports the news with a slant that helps there cause."

OMG! Are you serious? 95% of the media are libral Bias!!

Bill O'Reilly is not a "hyper-conservative." Pundits shouldn't comment on games they don't understand, and gamers shouldn't comment on pundits they don't understand.

I would argue that there's a definite distinction between drugs, video games and work when trying to compare their respective addictions. Keep in mind we're talking about true addiction here, not a few hours of gaming or whatever to relax after work. Commence wall-o-text.

The distinction is productivity. If you're addicted to work at least you're contributing to society. If you're addicted to drugs, at least you can do work at the same time (railing coke at work makes it fun for some people), and you must get something done that generates a profit for your employer to stay employed long term. When you play video games and only video games... you can't do anything else, you just play video games!

When you sit in your basement all day staring into the idiot box you're benefiting from externalities like defense spending, govt subsidised communications, roads for when you go out to buy food, etc., without giving anything back. Ever stop to think that only 150-200 years ago 95% of the population was involved in agriculture? The entertainment addict is benefiting from all the science that has gone on since then to bring that figure down to around 3-5% of people in agriculture. To do what? Sit around all day?

IMO, the only addiction worse than playing video games all day is getting drunk or high AND playing video games all day.

I'm not going to go down the path of justifying why every worker contributes to society in full detail, but suffice it to say your work gets multiplied more times than the direct results of your work, because you use the income you receive consumption, and the people you give that income to use it again, etc. Your employer also uses the profits generated from your work several times over as well.

In all seriousness, games are TOYS at best (even games on the cutting-edge of the medium such as Shadow of the Colossus and its existentialism are so cliched and derivative when held up to serious criticism). I think we'd be better off if we'd treat them as what they are... toys... and you shouldn't sit around playing TOYS all day any more than you should sit around playing with your Barbies or your Legos... anyone who thinks that the stories in games are great needs to read a good book... because that's where all the ideas for their stories come from, there's barely anything innovative there. The only thing new is the tactile experience of playing, which is strictly a function of entertainment.

Moreover, the problem is worse if a person is just playing one game, and not working, such as WoW for example, because their consumption of other games (or other entertainment entirely for that matter) goes down, and the circle of output stops there.

Given, these are all specific cases with a lot of 'ifs', but I know a lot of MMO addicts and this isn't too far from the truth... they wake up with the game, go to bed when too tired to play the game. They plan their sleep schedule around the raids. I know this because I was playing like that a few years ago and I was a retard! Of course it raises the question of how a gaming addict has the privilege to do this to begin with--they either earned a lot of money earlier in life, are in debt, or live with their parents--but I'll save that for another time.

The reason he's in the news business is because FOX News likes to have right-wing opinionated bullies spouting bias and BS. They throw in a few left-leaning people so they can call it fair and balanced news. It is a spin zone, and it's spinning clockwise (to the right) just about all the time.

enough allready are you seriously dropping 5% nation concepts into this AND defending O'Reilly? Amazing. He has savaged people from 5% Nation on his show before.

For anyone who doesn't know, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Percent_Nation) is what enough allready is talking about with that 'Mathematics' comment... 'Mathematics' is the study of the beliefs and concepts of the 5% Nation, an offshoot of the Nation of Islam. Most young Americans would probably know the 5% Nation most as the religious/philosophical stuff that the various members of the Wu Tang Clan talk about, as they are mostly members of the 5% Nation. Any time you hear someone talk about "Gods" (men), "Earths" (women), "Seeds" (children), or "the Black Man is God" it's likely a 5% Nation member.

More reading on the 5% Nation and their relationship to hip-hop: http://comp.uark.edu/~tsweden/5per.html

Oh, for the record enough allready, I don't have anything against the 5% Nation, I know about it because I had a coworker who was a member/believer. I didn't share his beliefs, but I found them interesting and he was a good guy (and good co-worker). I just thought the rest of the people in this chat should know where you were coming from.

@ P4Pancho,

"You're missing the point. The simple fact that addiction occurs is not basis enough demonize an entire medium. Justin implied as much when he brought up workaholics. The simple fact is people get addicted to everything. Work, gambling, worship, sex--should we ban sex just because Joe Viagra is 'neglecting reality?'"

It's not asinine. Justin writes "Not even the most avid gamer can admit there aren't cases of video game addiction, but that is hardly a reason to rail on them." Not only is that an appeal to gamers, but it's a reductio ad absurdum. Addiction is a reason to rail on drugs, yet it is not here? Something in this is clearly inconsistent, that's why it doesn't make sense.

Andy,

Bill O'Reilly DOES NOT BACK UP HIS BULLSHIT WITH FACTS. Are you even aware about what he said about American soldiers in Malmady? http://mediamatters.org/items/200606030002

Bill your an old fart, no offense. you dont understand gamers and games themselves. They are a passion. a type of love. and for many FAMILY! I am in love with my games, i would literally make love to them if it wouldnt break my system. Gaming is a sport like any other, football baseball, etc. And before you start critisizing gamers for playing their favorite sport, go ban the olders ones first that people actually get hurt by like foot ball. i like football but if you want to ban sports then ban everything.

O'Reilly is not "hyper conservative" - you guys clearly don't watch his show...

@Lone Starr

Excuse me while I look up reductio ad absurdum. I got an inkling of what it means, but I just want to make sure :P

Okay, I'm ready. From what I've been able to figure, reductio ad absurdum is an argument wherein one takes an assertion to an extreme(but logically sound) conclusion and reveals a contradiction which renders it invalid. According to Wikipedia, it's not necessarily a fallacy:

"There is a fairly common misconception that reductio ad absurdum simply denotes 'a silly argument' and is itself a logical fallacy. However, this is not correct; a properly constructed reductio constitutes a valid argument."

The post I was referring to implied that if a thing is addictive, then it is like a drug and should be treated as such. (i.e. made illegal, prohibited) By asserting that the same logic be applied to drugs as is applied to games, the author implies that, when it comes to addiction, the two are similar enough to warrant comparison. If games get a pass, so too should drugs, and vice versa, the argument seems to go. This conclusion is unacceptable (to most people anyway) so the claim is rejected.

What that argument ignores is the degree to which addiction occurs in relation to these two things. Should that not be taken into account? Like I said before, anything is potentially addicting--addiction itself is no basis for criticism, unless of course it is leveled strictly at human nature.

Now if games were AS addictive as drugs, then the analogy would be sound; we would then in fact have an inconsistency. But they clearly aren't, so the argument really is baseless. Perhaps asinine is too harsh a word--in fact, it definitely is; I apologize--but it is, at the very least, unconvincing.

Hammy: I don't think productivity or utility to society should be the only or even main criteria in deciding whether an activity is worthwhile. Taking your premise however, an addiction to work can, in fact, be greatly damaging to society if it results in the neglecting of one's family. Spending your whole life being productive at the office may mean squat if you're kid grows up to be a delinquent because mommy and daddy never came to his little league games.

O'Reilly is just an archaic coot who is upset that people are playing video games and enjoying them instead of watching him sit on his sandbox.

He won't invite you to his birthday party either.

P4Pancho,

"What that argument ignores is the degree to which addiction occurs in relation to these two things. Should that not be taken into account? Like I said before, anything is potentially addicting--addiction itself is no basis for criticism, unless of course it is leveled strictly at human nature.

Now if games were AS addictive as drugs, then the analogy would be sound; we would then in fact have an inconsistency. But they clearly aren't, so the argument really is baseless. Perhaps asinine is too harsh a word--in fact, it definitely is; I apologize--but it is, at the very least, unconvincing."

I mostly agree. I'm actually glad you brought up this point because it shows how poor the author's statement is. I assumed that, for the author, addiction is universally similar. Since that author does not indicate otherwise, it makes the most sense to give it a uniform definition. Either way you look at it, it was a poor statement by the author which was, ultimately, my point.

I think addiction is certainly a basis for criticism. While many things can be addictive, video games are relatively more addictive than other things. Since kids play them, addiction is definitely a concern. Addiction implies some degree of self-harm and often, video games result in such.

Also, this isn't an analogy. Weak analogies are also logical fallacies, so I avoid them as much as possible. :)

I'm just saying addictions to video games and drugs can't really be compared...

P4Pancho: "I don't think productivity or utility to society should be the only or even main criteria in deciding whether an activity is worthwhile. Taking your premise however, an addiction to work can, in fact, be greatly damaging to society if it results in the neglecting of one's family. Spending your whole life being productive at the office may mean squat if you're kid grows up to be a delinquent because mommy and daddy never came to his little league games."

We're not talking about all activities though, just a few specific ones, and I wasn't even discussing workaholics. I was talking about the distinction between drugs and video games, and their associated addictions. When people are high or drunk, they have the ability to do something else entirely different at the same time, and usually do (otherwise it's boring), albeit with less productivity, lol. They might not even work, but just the chance of doing something productive at the same time is the difference.

When you're playing video games, you play video games and only video games... they require your full attention (eyes, ears, hands) if that is your particular addiction. Getting high takes less than 10 minutes and the high lasts for a few hours or more, leaving time to do other things. Not that I advocate getting high and working, of course your productivity will drop...

Also, taking your example of a workaholic, wouldn't the same family neglect occur for said video game addict? But in this case society itself is worse off, because there's nothing getting made when u spend 10 hours a day on teh WoW, and in both cases your loved ones are put to the side.

Of course the ideal situation and one we should strive for, imo, is a "balanced" lifestyle--to limit game play to less than say, 2 hours a day, and to do as many different, new and challenging things per day as possible. Not only for the people in one's life but for one's own personal development. Which isn't easy, and is hardly a new idea...

I'm sure someone has already covered this, but calling O'Reilly a "hyper-conservative" is about like calling me an moderate. Nothing is further from the truth. I'm a hardcore conservative (not necessarily Republican), and O'Reilly's is wrong on several things, in my opinion. That being said, he does a good job of backing up his opinions and giving evidence to support his case. And the people who say that Fox has a right slant, then what, pray tell, do the other media outlets have? If even one person says that they're straight down the middle, I'm calling BS. 80% of newsrooms are liberal. Somehow, I think that might color news coverage.

As far as the video games issue, I completely disagreed with the tone of that particular segment, he makes it sound like anyone that plays games is completely ignorant of life in general, and heavily addicted. I'll not deny the addiction part, I play a fair amount of games. But I have not isolated myself from the real world, either. But, there are those that have. We've all heard about the MMO junkies that can't quit, and I'm sure that's where many of these opinions have been formed from.

I see gaming as my alternative to movies and music. Honestly, I don't get much from those segments. And the more I see gaming go down the "Hollywood" path, the more disgusted I get. And you have to admit, there have been many things that have given gaming a bad name already by those not "in the know". So it's our job not to blast O'Reilly for being "stupid", but to correct him on his mistakes in a reasonable, well thought out manner. That holds true for ALL issues.

Sarge out.

Keep in mind that the median age of Fox News viewers is 63 (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/entertainment/columnists/gail_shister/15736040.htm) and that O'Reilly's audience is 64% conservative(http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/studies_surveys_research/pew_evening_news_aud_more_polarized_41083.asp).

So what we have is nothing more than a grumpy old man preaching to the choir about the "good ol' days."