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?
Women escape reality with youtube, tabloids, tiktok, instagram, and more. They don’t need gaming to be distracted and yet, they are. Guys would just find another thing to be distracted by.
There’s another article (thread) saying there is no loneliness epidemic but a poverty epidemic. And yes, that’s the problem: the uber-rich just have taken as much as they could and will continue to take more. They bought up our apartments, our debt, our third places, are playgrounds, and more. They own the media to tell us that the problems are all due to minorities that have no power and want us to look down or be distracted by services that we give all our information too, and allow them to find more ways to hook us into distractive crap so that we don’t look up.
Want to solve loneliness, childlessness, poverty, etc? !twnw@fedia.io #TaxWealthNow #TaxWealth
Are you aware that women play games too
Yeah, I was a little unsure if I should gender this discussion, but a few factors went into it:
Totally agree that economics is at the root of all of it, and at the root of all of that is wealth (and power) concerntration.
Edit: Keeping in mind gender essentialism is bullshit, men in general tend to be more attracted by themes of power and control, women more by themes of connection. I think the gendered nature of the distractions we are bringing up reflect that.
I see where you’re coming from now and can understand your line of thinking. It is a difficult question because it is difficult to predict. Gaming is also a source of radicalisation.
Whether removing it altogether would lead to a sizable mass of men to become politically active and engaged, that I kind of doubt. Gaming is more accessible now and there are many poor men that game. Poverty goes hand in hand with worse education and more precarity. Removing one source of distraction from a badly and/or insufficiently educated man would not necessarily lead to an awareness of the source of their struggles. It might make them receptive to influences claiming to know the source of their struggles, but unfortunately, I believe that most of those influences are controlled by those who actually are the source of the problem.
IMO, there’s a greater chance of more affluent and educated gamers to become aware of the circumstances. But they often will not be the ones doing the damage IRL as they have more to lose than the lower classes. Times are changing and they also possess less, especially housing, so the uber-rich might actually be creating a system where even “affluent” and educated people have so little to lose that they are willing to actually gamble and go protest, try to change the system, and violently or peacefully enact change.
In summary, my guess is that removing gaming wouldn’t change much - unless if it were done suddenly e.g the state said gaming is now illegal.
Riots don’t have to be INFORMED. They can just be an angry reaction or people without a conscious political purpose.