In a previous post, we examined a video by Dave Cullen which explores the possibility that the coronavirus vaccine is a scam designed to sterilize a percentage of the people who get it in an effort to curb overpopulation. I know that such an idea would sound crazy to most people, but considering the preponderance of evidence (and the fact that the vaccine makers have been indemnified from side-effects claims), I think most people should be a little suspicious.
I bring this up because representative Steve Stivers (R-Ohio) has suggested that a proposed $1400 stimulus be withheld, except for those who got the coronavirus vaccine. Rep. Stivers wasn’t the first to bring up the idea of incentivizing vaccination, a similar suggestion has been brought up by Rep. John Delaney (D-Maryland).
That’s interesting, considering that it was just a couple days ago that we’ve examined the Jaffe memo, which suggested, among other things, “Payments to encourage sterilization”.
It is possible that it’s just a coincidence. However, suppose someone was a mean-spirited pork-belch with way too much influence, way more money than they deserve, and with a HItler-esque interest in reducing the world’s population. If a sterilizing vaccine is how they intended to pull it off, they’d achieve far greater success if vaccination were incentivized, especially if a significant portion of the population has been brought into dire financial straights.
That would be conspiracy theorizing, of course. But people seem to forget that being skeptical, having doubts, and seeking out motives can actually be a good thing, especially when there are some seriously sketchy things going on.
I’ve repeatedly heard the sentiment that if Nintendo didn’t want us to cheat, they wouldn’t have made certain Pokémon so hard to get.
Cheating has long been an ethical dilemma among gamers, though among game makers, the matter is pretty clear. But if only there were some way that game makers could make their stance clear…
…Oh, hold on. Yet another one is doing just that.
The Pokémon Company has just announced its plans to roll out bans for those who used “altered data”. These bans would impact Pokémon Sword, Pokémon Shield, and Pokémon Home. These bans would be either temporary or permanent, and no refunds would be issued in the instances in which violators were using paid services.
What I can say about this is, it’s about time. Pokémon was already the single highest-grossing intellectual property of all time, and with it, there’s a huge competitive community. There are yearly competitions, some of which live-streamed, to audiences all over the world.
If The Pokémon Company wants their games to be taken seriously as a competitive e-sport (as much as one could take such a thing seriously), they cannot allow cheaters to continue to run about unchecked.
This is an especially serious issue for Pokémon Home, elements of which are renewable paid services. Particularly impacted would be the GTS (Global Trade System), the economy of which is driven by the rarity of certain Pokémon. If players could duplicate rare Pokémon at will, their rarity becomes diminished in a sense comparable to over-inflation, and any incentive to use the paid service for long becomes effectively diminished.
As it has been, Pokémon Home’s GTS feature is like a game of hot potato, where players pass around an obvious hack until they get something they’re willing to settle for, in exchange for the legit Pokémon that they deposited to begin with. Somehow, I doubt that that was the kind of experience Nintendo had in mind when publishing Pokémon Home.
But now they want to do something about it? It’s about time. In fact, they could have done something about it a lot sooner. Because in doing so, they’d be enforcing their own Terms of Service. You know, the rules of the game that people are paying to play and use Nintendo online services for?
But if banning a bunch of kids will make them cry because it turns out that there are consequences to cheating, then maybe Nintendo is going to be the ones teaching them the lessons that their parents aren’t.
And maybe the games will become a lot more fun once the field is thinned out by banning those with no regard for the spirit of the game.
Oh, Kevin McCauley, you’re so adorable when your misplaced optimism borders on delusional.
Meanwhile, back in reality, Axios reports (21 Jan 2021) that trust in news media has fallen to an all-time low, as illustrated by the following graph:
At a glance, it appears as though the steepest plunge came when news outlets started lying about COVID-19, though correlation does not equal causation.
There are a few bullet points that served as takeaways:
56% of Americans agree with the statement that “Journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.”
58% think that “most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public.”
When Edelman re-polled Americans after the election, the figures had deteriorated even further, with 57% of Democrats trusting the media and only 18% of Republicans.
I can imagine that there is a desire among the curious to further study some of these trends, including the tendency of Democrats to drink the Kool-Aid when hearing what they want to hear.
According to Axios, “many news professionals are determined to do something about it.” To this end, and after brief consideration, I have the following advice to offer:
Stop lying to us.
I’ll grant that I seldom watch the news, except just to leave YouTube comments. I suspect that this has a lot to do with the fact that I’m not a diaper-wearing adult, and therefore fall well outside televised news’ key demographic. Much of my interaction with the news has to do with making fun of it, which isn’t that hard considering that the last few years of journalism has been characterized by obsessively going after just one guy.
If there’s one thing about this study that bothers me, it’s that as many people trust the news media as they do. Forty-six percent? That’s way too high! That suggests that 46% (nearly half) of all Americans will believe complete butt-slurry if it came from the mouth of a man in a suit. When I walk down the street, half the people I see don’t look like they’re drooling all over themselves or trying to bite their own ears, so I find it hard to picture half of Americans dumb enough to trust the three-letter networks.
But do you know what I do see? A lot of fat people. And lots of Americans eat at McDonald’s. Corporate left-wing media is like McDonald’s for your brain. That stuff makes brains fat, sluggish, and tired.
When people trust the news, they keep going back for more and more of that mental McDonald’s, and as they keep stuffing themselves, their bloated paunch distends.
The Jaffe memo, pictured above (source), is a table constructed from measures proposed by the eugenics movement in 1969. The proposals were never intended to be made public.
A word about the eugenics movement: people today are largely unaware of it. Those that are aware of it mostly seem to be under the impression that it’s no longer a significant factor in world events.
Eugenics came about in light of the Darwinian theory of evolution, and it was embraced by racist people because it provided a scientific basis for their racist tendencies. The earlier 20th century saw much of the world’s races proclaiming themselves the best.
After WW2, eugenics became highly unpopular. This had much to do with the fact that Hitler and his party of National Socialists took the idea to extremes, and became world famous for his inhuman behavior.
The popular perception today is that eugenics was defeated, and that the world has not looked back, since. In reality, ideas are nearly impossible to destroy, no matter how much they deserve it. In reality, eugenics was driven underground, resuming its dark designs outside of the public eye.
Among the beliefs of eugenics is that there is getting to be too many human beings, which is why the Jaffe memo above calls for measures to discourage people from procreating as abundantly.
At one point, the eugenics movement went crazy with the compulsory sterilization of those whom they deemed unfit. Today, it seems they are more about deterring family plans. This can sometimes have the appearance of allowing people to make their choices voluntarily, but considering the underhanded methods they have engaged in, it’s easy to see that there is no ethical way to deter family plans.
Let’s look at a few aspects of the memo to see just what ideas they came up with about five decades back. They’ll be interesting to think about considering how many of their plans have already come to fruition.
(Some points may be skipped for brevity.)
Restructure family: a) Postpone or avoid marriage, b) Alter image of ideal family size
Eugenics has declared war on the family, and their misinformation campaign is well underway. It’s easy to see that people are marrying later in life. For eugenics, this is a dream come true, as the result is people skipping their more fertile years.
Also of note is that their intent to restructure the public perception of the ideal family size. Traditionally, a larger family has been viewed as a blessing. In a sense, eugenics wishes to prop itself up, making themselves out to be gods, restructuring families as they wish, and taking it upon themselves to dictate to us a new set of values.
Compulsory education of children
Like the socialists and communists before them, the eugenics movement knows that children are the key to the future, and if they have your children as a captive audience, they can fill their minds with whatever mashugganah they please, and few would be able to resist or gainsay.
There is a bit of a sobering pause for thought to be had, here. Isn’t the education system highly establishment, these days? And don’t we currently have compulsory education? If the eugenicists did have sway over the education system, just how pervasive are they?
Encourage increased homosexuality
How well do you suppose this went? Homosexuals only make up about 2.5% of the population, but corporations and media are making it seem as though it’s more widespread.
How this would benefit their movement is easy to see, because homosexuals, when allowed to pursue their passions, don’t procreate.
Still, the suggestion that homosexuality can be encouraged, rather than be a natural occurrence in the human genome, appears to suggest that they are aware that it can be the result of external conditioning. It certainly flies in the face of the more cultivated perception.
The Jaffe memo doesn’t say anything about transsexuals, but it’s understandable that some similar principles apply. Interestingly, a transsexual has been appointed to the position of Health Secretary.
Fertility control agents in water supply
Here comes the people who have been pointing at fluoride. But the fact that a similar measure has actually been considered is food for thought.
Encourage women to work
One might wonder how this could possibly limit fertility. This has to do with a couple nuanced points.
For one thing, there’s the more obvious observation that a woman who takes on career pursuits at a young age may end up skipping out on the more fertile years of her life, and might not start a family until a later point when she’d likely have fewer children.
There’s also the point that women are naturally hypergamous, meaning that they tend to marry upward on the social scale. Recent times have seen many women ascend the career ladder, but upon doing so, they find fewer men that they find suitable for themselves.
Modify tax policies: (etc. etc.)
European colonists in America went to war over a tax of about 2 to 3 percent. Today, the federal government chows down on roughly 45% of a person’s income.
A recurring theme among the economic deterrents is the idea of penalizing parents who have children, particularly after a certain number. Today, mere economic difficulty seems to serve as a deterrent to family plans. The mobility of the middle class has long been a vexation of the upper class, but in recent decades, the gap between the upper and middle class has widened to a near-insurmountable chasm.
It’s hard to imagine that eugenics could ask for an approach for population control more effective than ensuring that the middle class joins the ranks of the destitute.
What happened to the middle class might have actually exceeded their expectations. Then there’s the fact that there’s fewer payouts involved when taking the routes of penalties and hardships than to provide incentives. Perhaps they’ve decided on a more cost-effective path.
Induce depression
The effects of depression on reducing a person’s motivation is easy to understand. But what methods would they be considering to induce depression on their intended victims?
Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies
Wow.
Compulsory sterilization of all who have two children except for a few who would be allowed three
Big wow, they’re getting into some Hitler territory, there!
What more do I have to say? They’re straight-up saying that some people deserve to procreate more than others, and they want to decide how many children people get.
Confine childbearing to only a limited number of adults
It wouldn’t surprise me if they wanted to carefully select who these people are, based on behavioral, genetic, and idealogical criteria. Or class criteria, for that matter.
One thing we’ve already seen is the one-child rule in communist China. Ted Turner was an outspoken fan of this rule, but Ted Turner himself has had four children.
The idea isn’t to place limitations on the wealthy, it’s to place limitations on you.
Housing policies: a) Discouragement of private home ownership
Millennials are often criticized for their hesitance to buy homes. What’s being overlooked is that economic factors are making home ownership for younger people cost prohibitive.
Older people who already got while the getting was good would do well to know that they’d be unlikely to replicate their previous successes in current conditions. They’d be better off holding on to what they’ve got for as long as they could manage.
No generation has become as heavily educated, and worked with as sharp career focus, just to get less compared to the preceding few generations. Obviously, this means that something is not right.
The eugenicists don’t want you to own your own home. It wouldn’t surprise me if the current housing market was the result of years of meddling by the world’s worst people.
Payments to encourage abortions
If you don’t have to have it explained to you why moral people would find rewarded abortions infuriating, you’re likely a moral person, yourself. Note the implication that abortions are so important to eugenicists that they actually considered paying people to undergo the procedure.
Eugenics, like abortion, is about murder. It’s about deciding who lives and who dies, hidden behind a veneer of civility. When the blood is hidden from the sight of ordinary people, it’s easy for them to pretend it’s not happening. But those who do the murder also kill an important aspect of themselves: their humanity.
Because humanity would not approve of what they’re doing, it’s easy to see why they’d desire to reshape humanity according to their own image.
In five decade’s time, a lot has happened. Obviously, the plan is a lot further along. In some ways, it has taken on different directions, and achieved successes that the original brainstormers hadn’t anticipated. Of course, the Jaffe memo is dated, what with it going back five decades. It stands to reason that the orchestrators behind the original memo have since revised their plans, in light of changing conditions.
But now that you’re aware of this memo, what do you think? Does it provide a surprising explanation for the direction of certain societal trends? Or perhaps you might be skeptical about it. Not everyone finds it easy to accept that a group of people like the eugenicists could have such a pronounced impact on society, though it seems they may have been more pronounced than we gave them credit for.
Personally, I think it reveals some possible motivations behind certain influential people whose decisions may initially seem to make no sense. If a “leader” makes a choice that might result in undesirable consequences, it’s possible that they might be undesirable for you by design.
I’ve noticed a sharp increase in the amount of attention that I’ve been getting on dating sites from interested women, even though my employment has remained consistent, and most of my profiles haven’t been updated in months.
Ignoring world events, this might seem like an enigma, but we know better. It has to do with the lockdowns that were a response to the coronavirus epidemic. You know, the virus that’s so deadly that you have to take a test to know you have it.
Because of the lockdowns, men all over the country have lost their jobs, which is bad news for the numerous men out there who would otherwise be able to support women in their lives.
Worse yet, the moratorium on evictions is looking like they’ll expire in March, which puts many already-desperate women in a pretty bad spot.
Obviously, these circumstances are not favorable for everyone, except for a few: Those whose jobs have been deemed life-sustaining by their state governors, especially those not in low-paying service industry jobs.
Considering their circumstances, women are suddenly overcoming their natural inhibitions by taking initiative, pursuing relationships with men who may be better able to care for them. The alternative to succeeding in the current economic conditions may very well be for women to end up back with their parents, or worse, to end up homeless!
Considering this, it would greatly behoove women to avoid using their old tactics, such as psychological manipulation, because they really can’t afford to end up losing a valuable opportunity because something went wrong.
What’s more, they won’t have the same confidence that men would come crawling back, as though men are so desperate for some naked time that they could easily be made to give up their self-respect to get it. If it’s intimacy that men are after, there are now many more women who are offering it, and some of them happen to be much better at being women.
Such as Asian women, for example. They have a knack for being kind-hearted, submissive, and non-belligerent. It’s because of these attributes that western men, having been vexed by western women, have historically turned to the far-east to find their spouses. Those women tend to be eagerly accepting, in part because they find western men attractive, and in part because they see America as offering a brighter future.
Everyone gets off well from the deal, except western women. Whether they like it or not, they do have Asian women to compete with. Which is a great reason for them to get competitive.
In times past, dating sites have been a blast for women, while men have found them exhausting. If you’ve ever wondered why this is, it’s because of the disproportionate amount of women who have used dating sites frivolously. In many cases, they’d already be in a relationship, but they’d use the site anyway to gauge their attractiveness. As a result, men have come away from dating sites feeling dejected, having no idea that they’ve been played for dopamine hits.
Matters are changing now, as women are becoming competitive again, there being too much at stake to treat dating sites as a big, stupid game.
As refreshing as this is, it’s true that these circumstances are not ideal, particularly for the men who aren’t as well off. The job market is already being flooded with men who became unemployed due to the lockdowns, but dating pools seem like they’re being flooded with women who actually have an interest in getting relationships to work out.
As if I haven’t already hammered away at the point, there’s also the fact that dating sites are a recent invention. That’s not something that people have had ages and ages to adapt to. For that matter, the same could be said for dating in general. For much of human history, for a person to choose their spouse was something infrequent. It usually came down to marriages arranged by parents between families, usually in the interest of ensuring that communities remained tightly-knit. Royalty did something similar, arranging marriages that were intentionally designed to ensure familial connections. Modern ideas of “love” seldom had anything to do with it.
When you understand this, it makes intuitive sense why it seems like, when it comes to the dating game, people don’t seem to have any idea what they’re doing. That’s because humans are better-accustomed to having mommy and daddy pick someone out for them. In the absence of this, people instead meander about from one date to another, afraid to slip up over the slightest goof. In recent times, men have had to learn shifting rules as they go, often pulled about by marketers that want them to buy diamonds (which aren’t actually rare), gross lobsters, expensive chocolates, and other carefully-marketed bullcrap that women aren’t always interested in, anyway.
Women might want to bring their A-game, because I’m already considering buying a two-way ticket to Japan, and a one-way ticket to bring someone back with me.
I have a series called That Was Actually The News, which examines crazy or hard-to-believe stories that make the news, sometimes with jabs at the outlets that consider these occurrences news. For the first time, I have my doubts that the category could do it justice. Wait ‘til you find out why.
President Elect Joe Biden has just appointed his health secretary. And it is a transsexual woman.
We’re really in for it, now.
Rachel Levine, who previously served as Health Secretary of the state of Pennsylvania, had been selected by Joe Biden as his Health Secretary. Rachel identified as a man for the first 50 years of her(?) life, before deciding she’d rather be a woman, breaking up with her wife over the delusion.
Rachel is also known for blowing her stack when an interviewer used the wrong pronouns on her, accidentally. I know that not every transsexual is militant about it, but there is an outspoken few who actually view misgendering as a form of assault.
And as though that weren’t bad enough, she was the one who ordered people who tested positive for COVID-19 into nursing homes, where they became surrounded by people especially susceptible to fatalities through complications. If you still haven’t figured out why that’s stupid, just read that last sentence again until you figure it out. No reader left behind!
With her new position of power, Rachel can be expected to spew intersectional propaganda under the guise of science, while shaping the medical world to the image of a sexual proclamation that only about 0.5% of people identify with, alienating the remaining 99.5% of people who are better in touch with reality.
Additionally, Biden wishes to impose 100 days of mask-wearing on all Americans, as though the results would be any different from the previous 300 days of doing the same.
Biden also wants to stick the arms of 100 million Americans (just under 1/3 of the population) with a vaccine that might actually cause sterilization, in under 100 days.
Incidentally, the vaccine manufacturer has been indemnified against claims of harmful side effects. Suspicious?
As creepy as all this is, ol’ sleepy Joe hasn’t even been inaugurated, yet.
A man pretending to be a woman is now one of the most powerful physicians on earth. Dark days are ahead for the medical world.
Most of us would know that betraying one’s own family is an enormous no-no, so I don’t have to labor that point.
But it seems like not everyone is on the same page, because a Massachusetts woman outed her own family after discovering an online video of them from the capitol siege.
Her decision came after she was criticized by her family for her sexuality, and for wanting to participate in the BLM riots peaceful protests, probably because something about the rampant destruction civil protests made her feel left out.
“It was an emotional thing to decide to do this but at the same time if I did nothing I was, I felt that I was as bad as them,”
Helena Duke
Oh, how hard it must have been on Helena to cause her family members to face possible criminal charges, and may have even cost her mother her job.
But at least she got something out of the deal, and that’s the feeling of self-satisfaction that comes with standing up for her freedom to get it on with a woman, even though she was a grown woman, and could make her own choices with her life, anyhow.
I’ve heard that Helena has since raised some money on crowdfunding. At this point, I think it’s clear that she could use as much help as she could get. After all, she betrayed her family, so unless she already has the means to support herself, she likely has a long future of being a drain on society ahead of her.
If you’re thinking of befriending her, you might want to be careful about that. To understand why, pay close attention to something she already said:
“It was an emotional thing to decide to do this but at the same time if I did nothing I was, I felt that I was as bad as them,“
Helena Duke, bold added
As bad as it is that she has treachery against her own family in her history, like many leftists, Helena Duke believes in guilt by association. If you slip up around her even slightly, she’ll feel an obligation to turn against you too, out of self-preservation.
We’ve been warned lately that the left eats their own. We can take their word for it when they warn us about it themselves.
Legacy media seems to be sticking up for Helena, and at this point, I doubt I’d be fooling very many people if I were to pretend to be surprised. If leftist institutions and their followers are in collective agreement that betraying family is okay, and they’re open about it, we can at least thank them for being up-front about their real values.
Justina Ireland, fighting the patriarchy by writing boring sci-fi.
The author of the first novel in the new Star Wars setting, The High Republic, has told us not to purchase her new novel, and told us not to waste our time.
That’s not the full context, of course. But in light of that, it wouldn’t get any better, as it would demonstrate that a large faction of the Star Wars creative team and its leadership still haven’t learned their lesson.
The drama began when Ireland criticized a Twitter thread which involved a 9-year-old girl attempting to use a can opener. She was welcome to her criticism, and the routine sounds like it wasn’t my cup of tea. But hey, considering all the kids out there that think they understand the world better than grownups that have been around longer, there’s a place for yet more documented evidence of children failing to accomplish basic tasks.
However, that Ireland directed her vitriol towards white men in particular was an indication of a certain weakness, political in nature, that has been prominent among the low-information crowd.
You can read the exchange on Bounding Into Comics’ page, but succinctly, a commenter pointed out that it was still bad for business for content creators to continue practicing divisive politics, to which Ireland responded by doubling down hard.
Justina Ireland warned us about her book, telling us, “The problem is, if you don’t like my politics and my beliefs and my moral compass you aren’t going to like my books so let’s just go ahead and save everyone some time.”
When one uses their creative outlet as a vehicle to push their politics, there is a great potential for awkwardness, and a large portion of the audience is likely to be alienated, and discontinue participation. Sound like an expression in modern parlance?
Matters are not looking favorable for Ireland, considering that she’s apparently a far-leftist. If you’ve had to confront one, you’re already familiar with their tactics, which involves calling the other side names and and aggressively insulting their intelligence until their opposition (theoretically) bows down to their intellectual supremacy. What it comes down to is that either you’re marching in perfect lock-step with them, or you’re an X-ophobe, where “X” is a variable where they insert a descriptor for a supposedly-marginalized group, apparently at random.
We know that Disney is capable of producing excellent Star Wars content. The Mandalorian proved that by telling an interesting story with great new characters, and with cameos with established characters that people already care about. But it seems as though not everyone at Disney gets it, as Ireland is indicating that it’s reasonable to expect her books to become another reminder of the world’s problems, rather than the escape one might have preferred from fiction.
It’s gotten to the point that, if fans know that a writer has leftist politics, they’re quick to write off what they come up with. That’s because leftists are bad at telling stories without bringing in their politics. It didn’t take long for Justina Ireland to share her politics, and it doesn’t bode well for Star Wars: Glowstick Party of Friendship.
Dave Cullen of Computing Forever has posted an important video to alternative video-hosting service BitChute. This video, titled “Sterilisation”, is a must-watch, especially if you’re thinking about getting the COVID vaccine, considering how quickly the vaccine has been rushed by certain persons interested in limiting the human population, who also have an established history of causing permanent sterilization through vaccines. Re-read that previous sentence, if you have to. Here is the video, embedded:
I’ve long been subscribed to Computing Forever on YouTube, even since his early days when when his channel was focused on computing, with a particular emphasis on bashing Apple products. In more recent times, he has switched gears to world trends, and has spread his presence to alternative media platforms, considering that his viewpoints aren’t in lockstep with the official narrative. Dave as recently been blocked from uploading new videos to YouTube, likely because his recent offerings rock the boat.
In the above-embedded video, Dave succinctly makes the case for why it’s obvious that the COVID vaccine was specifically-designed to damage human fertility. Some of the information was already well-established, but he does get credit for outlining the information available in a manner that is succinct enough for a quick watch, but with information compelling enough to help a person make up their mind.
I also believe he deserves credit for finding the Jaffe Memo, a 1969 document outlining population control tactics by Planned Parenthood. I’ve happened upon it before, but for some reason, it has since become notoriously hard to find. Here is a link to read it, where it can also be downloaded, which I recommend doing before that particular site were to vanish.
If you’re in the black community, you should take special interest, as the eugenics movement behind the population control measures have long looked down on your race. But even if you’re not, your attention in this matter is strongly advised. (Remember: Racism is bad.)
It’s not a pretty thought, but the fraudulent game is about artificially-induced natural selection, where the winners are those whom perverse scientism deems worthy, or at least those who are not gullible enough to get a vaccine more dangerous than the actual disease.
Considering this, it’s interesting that the big players in social media are working to prevent anyone from saying the wrong thing about the virus, in much the same way that we aren’t allowed to question the results of the election this time around. It’s as though the tech oligarchs have allied with the state to impose strict top-down controls to push an unethical agenda. But hey, that sounds like a conspiracy theory, doesn’t it?
Now that the establishment has selected their leaders, things will move along quickly, now.
The study found that the only correlating factor was due to the fact that males, who were more likely to play video games, are naturally more predisposed to committing violent acts.
I think we can agree that this study would have been more helpful a decade or so ago, when the virtue-signaling moral busybodies were making an issue out of this. However, a 10-year study would have been more valuable in providing insight into the longer-term effects of video games. It’s like the difference between waiting a year to hear “you’re right” versus waiting 10 years to hear “you’re definitely right”. At least we’ve won that battle in the time since the study started.
But here’s an idea: Why don’t we wait until after we have the conclusions of studies before considering placing restrictions on content creators?
The usefulness of this study doesn’t just apply to video games. Other forms of entertainment and artistic expression benefit from the case being made that people aren’t influenced by entertainment media. This study bolsters the case strongly, by flying in the face of the expectation one may have that video games might do more to influence one to violence, by their interactive nature. As the study finds, they don’t, and it really seems to be the case that sadism comes from within.
That video games don’t influence a person’s outlook is obvious (putting aside the rare cases of those who are especially delusional). This is because video games are obviously just made-up, and usually don’t even serve the purpose of cultivating a person’s expectations.
I’ll be honest, I had no expectation that I could beat people up with colorful laser-beams and space-ninja acrobatics.
Magnetricity 