Glenn Beck thinks Watch Dogs teaches you how to hack the real world

Sorry who?

To me it is just another person with an opinion who demonstrates confirmation bias. The only difference is that person has a camera in front of him.

 

It's too bad there are little consequences to being wrong.

 

Is this thread somehow confirmation that stupid people exist?

 

Hmmm. I just tried to hack my PC by using the cam of my Laptop - i must be doing something wrong.

 

Did you press "Q"?

 

Yup.. There was even a point in time people believed what Alex Jones used to say.. Then he ramped up his derp to full blown tin foil hat and became a complete mockery of himself.

Sad thing is.. There is a niche audience for these two (and others like them) who watch their shows religiously and even pay for podcasts.. *smh*.. It's a cash generating machine being as dumb as they are. Plus all the hits their sites and videos get by these trolls (that they do).. Yup.. They are full on click baiting money makers.

 

You guys are as ignorant as you say Glenn Beck is. Many video games are designed by people trying to convey social conversations. Watch Dogs is one such game. It was intended to open the conversation up about total connectivity and Governmental control. It's a conversation. Try and have a conversation while being respectful even with people you disagree with.

I was in the US Marines. US Marines believe that their training is 10% physical, 90% mental. Being trained to kill is likewise 90% mental. Being trained to kill by a video game isn't entirely insane to conceive. He's not saying that people are learning how to operate weapons through video games, he's saying they're being trained to kill. He also opens up a conversation about anti-heroes.

Going further in to the conversation of Watch Dogs, he sees how the game glorifies being an anti-hero, a stalker and a criminal regardless of self-justification.

Before you criticize the man, at least hear what he actual says and not what you want him to be saying. Not once, not a single time did he say that the game teaches you how to hack in to anything. It is teaching you to do it, not how to, but to do it. There's a huge difference and I'd actually had hoped that half of you would be intelligent and discerning enough to comprehend the difference. The game isn't teaching you how to do anything. Glenn Beck never said that it does, yet all of you and the moron at Forbes are saying that he did. He said that it's teaching you to do it, and using a rewards for behaviour system is the simplest form of teaching. You're rewarded for hacking, stalking and being violent. It's a legitimate and logical viewpoint especially for a non-gamer.

I'm not saying I agree with him. I'm a gamer, but God damned at least listen to what the man is saying and don't change it to a straw-man argument and then bash him for saying something he never even said.

The game isn't Mario, a lot of games, especially today aren't. Many of them delve in to real-life problems and offer real-life solutions. Watch Dogs is one such game.

 

Yes he does say the game "teaches you to hack and then become the ultimate voyeur in other people's lives and bedrooms by hacking into their phones"... Does the game actually teaches us that? You say there is a difference between teaching someone to do something and teaching someone how to do something?

The definition of that very word "teach" is: to show or explain to (someone) how to do something. Replace the definition in the phrase if you can't wrap your head (not yours in particular, but in general) around it and ask yourself if that is what the game is doing.If you disagree, then tell me what HE meant since you appeared to have understood it better than all of us.

You want us to hear what he actually says... k here we go:

"This game is teaching us how to hack into whats docking your bedroom"

"This game rewire your brain, we don't even know what they do yet" (Can he contradict himself anymore?)

"Can we have any heroes heroes?" - If he bothered to do his research, he would know that there are plenty of those already.

Honestly, you don't need to be have a masters degree in English to understand what he is saying, and why it's wrong.

 

Thanks you! Summed up how I was feeling about this subject. Plus everyone is attacking the guy when he even said he doesn't advocate banning violent games or any game period. He was only bringing up the issue hoping to alert people not to buy mature rated games for their kids. They are rated mature for reason after all. If I had kids I wouldn't want them playing GTA 5, especially when you can torture someone in it! Plus the fact that he said he doesn't advocate banning games makes me like him more than the other media ****heads at Fox News, CNN and MSNBC whose only solution to a problem is a BAN!

 

If someone kills themselves or others or harms themselves or others because of a video game, it's not the video games fault, that person was mentally ill to begin with and would have done it anyway

Blaming video games is just another lame excuse for people to bash things they either don't like or don't understand

I've been playing violent video games since I was a kid and never once felt the urge to act out anything I've done in game, guess why? Because I'm mentally stable/well

 

No. He does not say it teaches you how to, he said it teaches you to do. They're two totally different statements. The difference is important because of reality. In reality, the game isn't teaching you how to do anything. To say it does is bullcrap. On the other hand, it is teaching you to hack and be violent. He didn't say it is teaching us how to hack in to your bedroom, it's teaching that it's OK to do it.

He didn't say that there aren't any heroes, he asked whats wrong with them and why we need anti-heroes. It's a conversation, it's supposed to be open and go both ways but apparently you guys don't grasp that idea. Its either your way, or no way. You're worse than he is, at least he's asking questions and not just saying agree with me or your wrong; like you just did.

Even if I don't disagree with him, I see where he's coming from and I think it's an interesting conversation. What we do for entertainment does reflect on who we are. Don't change reflect to another word either. I know you're good for it.

He didn't blame the game for anything, he merely pointed to a connection made by someone else. In-fact he used a perfectly good comparison. When someone commits violence the first thing we blame is the gun. Since that's true why doesn't the same logic apply to blaming video games? It's a valid question. Even if it's answerable, arguable and debatable, it isn't insane to ask the question.

You'd think it would be possible to disagree with or debate someone's point without going on an all-out personal attack based on things someone never actually said.

 

Video games don't teach anyone that any of their content is OK in any place other than the game

Parenting and school teach you that those things are not OK in the real world - you go out and do it anyway, then parenting or school is to blame along with weak mental state of the person carrying out the game actions

 

I opened this topic hoping to see a semi-intelligent discussion. A debate about Mr. Beck's commentary with a passionate and intelligent defense of the gaming industry and lifestyle. I was hoping to see someone picking apart Mr. Beck's statements and shooting back with facts and figures. What I found was none of that, it was a totally one-sided bash-fest. It was, I disagree with you so therefor you're wrong and insane. I found name-calling and mud slinging all based on a quote that isn't actually accurate to what he said. It's a classic straw-man followed-up by ad-hominem. It's pathetic and not very persuasive.

That's not true. Many video games are designed to implicate real-life situations and ask questions about real world society. They're the parables of the modern era. Sure, some are Super Mario, but not all of them are. Just read interviews by game designers and developers about what the game means to them and plenty of times it's about a real-life struggle manifest through the medium of video games. Mass Effect, for example is a fictional game that tries to portray real-life choices and consequences and it asks real-world questions and tackles social issues affecting the real world.

Isn't it true that game designers and developers used, for example, same-sex relationships in video games as a way of expressing and communicating their belief that those things are OK in real life or do you mean to say that they meant those things should only exist in video games? Video games, like any art, are generally an outward expression of the inside of someone's mind. The books you read has a lot to do with your character development in real-life, why wouldn't video games have the same effect when treated with the same respect? We're not talking about Super Mario here or jumping on Goombas, we're talking about Watch Dogs and Government overstepping with a side of total connectivity.

 

I think we're talking about tin-foil hat people to be honest

Anyway, I can't see this discussion being very productive so I`m gonna leave you to it before it ends in tears

 

Sure, name-calling and dismissal is always productive. How about instead of dismissing someone because they're ::insert label here:: try and be a little more persuasive in your argument or at least try and make yourself look to be a little more than prejudiced.

It reminds me of a book I read decades ago called "Rolling Thunder, hear my cry." where one character stated that they didn't believe in germs because they'd never seen them. Now, prejudiced person would dismiss that character as a backwater ignoramus beneath them, whereas the productive and open-minded person would demonstrate to them that not all things in existence are visible to the naked eye. One response is productive, the other is a waste of time that's even worse than the character's statement in the first place.

 

So much nonsense byblos. I would reply in depth, but I'm on my phone. Your logic is flawed, of course.

 

Yep.. Not even getting involved in this now.. I'd probably insult someone and this is straying so far off topic now it's taking away the reason I play games in the first place.. To forget about silliness like this.

 

Whats my logic? That we shouldn't dismiss someone with name-calling because we disagree with them?