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?
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?