Unless you make millions from it as an e-sport from the age of 16 and then the conservatives consider it a successful career.
Those things are subjective. You’re basically telling us “be conventional or you’re a failure” (typical conservatism basically).
No, I’m telling you that corporations can and will prey upon your delusions. You’re trying to politicize something that isn’t really political.
I know that gaming is not efficient to develop a conventionally successful career, albeit I don’t discount the fact gaming develops skills but that’s besides the point and not required to choose to game.
The point is that deep down you would not say those things if someone consistently made MONEY out of gaming which is a typical conservative lifestyle view (“do a career or do nothing”).
…dude, you the one who went off on an tangent about gamers being narcissists and not creative. As if there’s no political implications there.
You’re standing on the shoulders of a long tradition of people throwing shade at gamers and making it a political issue. The Anita Sarkeesians. The Jack Thompsons. The freakouts over GTA or Mortal Kombat or Doom being too violent and surely that must be why there are so many school shootings (just don’t ever blame the guns or the laws we have -or don’t have- about them! 
)
I’m not saying video games or gamers are immune from critique, but don’t act like your positions have no political implications.
So am I woke or am I conservative then? Y’all can’t seem to make up your minds on that.
No, I am not in any way getting upset for my own sake. Gaming addiction hurts gamers and I’m concerned about gamers. The way to avoid gaming addiction, and save gamers’ lives, is to understand that the addictive trap is based on ego preservation vs a terrible life. People who have achieved little or nothing in the real world are offered a fake world where regardless of how much they succeed they will be told they succeeded.
What I’m being is psychological and critical, not political. You’re just responding negatively because I am “attacking” a lifestyle, but what I’m really doing is pointing out that it’s unhealthy and therefore dangerous. I mean, you can say I’m being political if I say obesity kills, but I’m really not.
Me: you being political dude.
You:
Yeah, that connects /s
So you admit you were the one going off on a tangent.
This isn’t your psych 101 class/forum. It’s like you’re walking into a restaurant where people are just enjoying their meal, but you be like OBESITY KILLS Y’ALL COPING
…that’s less psychological and more “wtf is this psycho yapping about?”
A distinction without a difference. You being critical of this thing which affects society or the population at large is in itself a political stance.
If it was a one time thing or if it’s a joke maybe you can pass it off as nothing, but we both know how often you engage in this topic.
No, I am being critical 
All I said was that you are being political (even if you keep on denying it). That’s not negative, unless you think that somehow people having political stances and being involved in politics is a bad thing.
As for actual negativity, I’ll remind you: you came into this thread with phrases like “cope” and calling people not creative. Pretty sure most people see those as plain attacks, without the need for you to put quotes around it.
The one who brought negativity into the thread is you. You’re projecting. See I’m also being psychological
If that’s all you did.
But again, you did this in a gaming forum. As above, it’s like you’re shouting in a restaurant about the dangers of obesity. But your initial choice of words sound more like a grade school kid fat shaming people than actually offering genuine psychological criticisms or concern.
But even if we take your concern as sincere… that still ends up making you political, since you being so concerned and speaking out so often about it makes you ::drumroll:: a political activist. Hence, we go back to linking you to the lineage of the Sarkeesians and Thompsons. The former was also said to be a critic of video games, who’s just deeply concerned. Only she didn’t pretend to not be political.
Oh and this? My comment is that there’s a long tradition of people going after gamers, which can come from both the left or the right. The left can call gamers sexist/anti-social/mass shooters in waiting/etc, while the right can call gamers nerds/virgins/unathletic/etc. Gamers have been an easy group to target as “the other” by both sides (even though I’m pretty sure by statistics, more people game or have gamed than not for a while now)
My comment wasn’t about which side of the political spectrum you’re on. Just that you’re being political.
Carnivore seems to be on a different point.
Before I address this, I continue to maintain that your Sarkeesian/Thompson analogy is bad, and your claim I’m being political is bad.
This analogy, however, is not bad. It is correct that I was deliberately making a point which I knew would be in opposition to the biases of the place itself.
And I’ve used this exact analogy to criticize other people before. There is indeed some level of absurdity in presenting ideas you know most residents of the place will not like.
But what you’re failing to understand is that cultural doesn’t necessarily mean political. But if I’m being real, the vast majority of people these days don’t understand that.
The one thing I will say is that things are a little more complicated than drawing a line and saying that everything falls on some kind of political spectrum on that line.
Furthermore, if you allow yourself to think in such simplistic terms, you can and will be taken advantage of by manipulative people. There is no political party or major game developer or major player of any kind in the modern world that chooses consistently between wanting to protect the status quo and wanting to pursue new ideas. All of them want to keep things that serve their own self-interest and get rid of anything that threatens their self-interest. Wall Street loves socialism when they’re the ones who are bailed out; not so much, when it’s for you. They’re called the left and the right because, if you’re not careful, they will dual-wield them against you.
I only discuss politics to this extent, to make my point that the majority of what people call “politics” isn’t even real. It’s an exploitative illusion, thinly veiled but made popular because people are like the teacher in the video and want overly simply solutions to complex problems. There are political differences but a single unifying culture: that of a cult.
Yeah, but this argument extends over to you, as well, you’re just not being aware of it.
You’re constantly criticizing others and chasing perfectionism while being completely blind about half of the things that make up a whole.
To quote an example from this thread, you’re basically accusing gamers of addiction, while to me and anyone else really educated in psychology it’s a tautology.
EVERYTHING is addiction. Food is addictive. Drugs are. Games are. Sex is. Self-pleasuring can be.
Everything in this world which makes our neurotransmitters flood is addictive, so not much use in battling any form of addiction - AT ALL.
You’re much better off telling people about the alternatives than to tell them to quit or reduce consumption of something.
And right now, not much alternatives exist which can in any way, shape or form compare to gaming.
Only like 33% people can sustain physical exercise throughout their lives, but 100% people can sit and play games.
Your battle was lost before it began.
Incorrect. You’re coping.
No, I’m not, but the very fact that you responded without a single argument against, actually proves that you’re the one coping.
Incorrect. You’re still coping.
By the way, here’s a few examples of things that aren’t addictive:
In general, work has meaning and play without learning is meaningless hedonism. Addiction is indeed a symptom, your play becomes corrupted because your work has become corrupted. As you grow increasingly hopeless regarding finding any value in your labour, you attempt uselessly to find meaning in consumption, but satiation only matters as a means to an end that outlasts your eventual death.
It’s as if you are talking to me directly
I’m not trying to say that the problem has easy solutions, I’m just trying to describe it with some accuracy
And the key to understanding consumption is that its meaning is preparing you to work. You’ll never solve the higher order psychological problem with consuming more, but your lizard brain will just want more and more
I sure hope I can be that 33% for my whole life, doing good still at 42 with basketball twice a week!!
on another note, I totally I wish I could like this thread more than once, good points in this thread.
I’m not other people (that implies you have the impression of a conspiracy of a group that doesn’t exist).
I’m pretty sure “don’t take gaming seriously” is traditional conservatism,
and you had said before people should have a mission to raise a family.