« Nous avons vu sur plusieurs d’entre elles, Snapchat, TikTok, et plusieurs autres à la fois, l’organisation de rassemblements violents se faire, mais une forme de mimétisme de la violence, ce qui, chez les plus jeunes, conduit à une forme de sortie du réel. Et on a le sentiment parfois que certains d’entre eux vivent dans la rue les jeux vidéo qui les ont intoxiqués. »
For those who do not speak French, Macron is saying here that social media is helping people organise the riots and also triggers some form of dissociative behaviour, that he blames on “poisonous” video games.
Not a word on the fact that a litteral teenager was murdered for allegedly forcing a traffic stop.
We have seen on several of them, Snapchat, TikTok, and several others at the same time, the organization of violent rallies taking place, but a form of mimicry of violence, which, among the youngest, leads to a form of exit from reality. And we sometimes have the feeling that some of them live on the street from the video games that have intoxicated them.
I fail to see how this proves your point. This “video games desensitize kids to violence” has been the go-to dogwhistle for conservatives to blame video games for decades.
This “video games desensitize kids to violence” has been the go-to dogwhistle for conservatives to blame video games for decades.
Sure, this may be true but that doesn’t mean that Macron is saying that video games caused the riots. That’s simply an illogical conclusion from the translation in the article and the translation I have offered. Illogical bullshit arguments errode causes they don’t further causes. Let’s call out Macron’s bad behavior without resorting to lies and clickbait headlines.
He’s basically saying “video games make people violent” and “violence causes riots” it’s not hard to connect the dots of what he’s trying to say. Politicians often speak in dogwhistles and half-statements in order to make their statement while not appearing too extreme. See also “Will no one rid me of this Turbulent Priest?”
You’re straw manning his argument by inferring what he’s saying instead of reading what he literally said. Macron did not say that video games are to blame for the riots, that would be an absurd statement.
What is the purpose of this article? There are broadly 3 camps, people who support Macron, people who are opposed to Macron, and those who are indifferent. People who support Macron will read this article and likely see it’s logical flaws further cementing their beliefs that the Macron supporters illogical. People who are opposed Macron will read this article and ignore the logical flaws because it matches their existing beliefs. And people who are indifferent won’t be swayed by illogical argument.
Your dog whistling argument may be true, so why not put that in an article instead of creating or promoting this illogical ragebait article?
This is a direct quote :
« Nous avons vu sur plusieurs d’entre elles, Snapchat, TikTok, et plusieurs autres à la fois, l’organisation de rassemblements violents se faire, mais une forme de mimétisme de la violence, ce qui, chez les plus jeunes, conduit à une forme de sortie du réel. Et on a le sentiment parfois que certains d’entre eux vivent dans la rue les jeux vidéo qui les ont intoxiqués. »
For those who do not speak French, Macron is saying here that social media is helping people organise the riots and also triggers some form of dissociative behaviour, that he blames on “poisonous” video games.
Not a word on the fact that a litteral teenager was murdered for allegedly forcing a traffic stop.
This is a translation
I fail to see how this proves your point. This “video games desensitize kids to violence” has been the go-to dogwhistle for conservatives to blame video games for decades.
Sure, this may be true but that doesn’t mean that Macron is saying that video games caused the riots. That’s simply an illogical conclusion from the translation in the article and the translation I have offered. Illogical bullshit arguments errode causes they don’t further causes. Let’s call out Macron’s bad behavior without resorting to lies and clickbait headlines.
He’s basically saying “video games make people violent” and “violence causes riots” it’s not hard to connect the dots of what he’s trying to say. Politicians often speak in dogwhistles and half-statements in order to make their statement while not appearing too extreme. See also “Will no one rid me of this Turbulent Priest?”
You’re straw manning his argument by inferring what he’s saying instead of reading what he literally said. Macron did not say that video games are to blame for the riots, that would be an absurd statement.
What is the purpose of this article? There are broadly 3 camps, people who support Macron, people who are opposed to Macron, and those who are indifferent. People who support Macron will read this article and likely see it’s logical flaws further cementing their beliefs that the Macron supporters illogical. People who are opposed Macron will read this article and ignore the logical flaws because it matches their existing beliefs. And people who are indifferent won’t be swayed by illogical argument.
Your dog whistling argument may be true, so why not put that in an article instead of creating or promoting this illogical ragebait article?