Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

Orange County Register columnist Marla Jo Fisher took to her blog to issue an apology of sorts for writing that videogames were created by Satan.

Noting that her blog was inundated with comments from outraged gamers, Fisher entitles her post My Bad: Video Games Are Not From Satan, and proceeds to substitute Harry Potter’s Lord Voldemort for Satan as the specter behind evil videogames.

Fisher then resumed her rant against games and gamers, stereotyping videogame addicts as having a “deathly pallor,” who have “forgotten what daylight looks like.”

What does she think about videogamers that, inspired by their love of the medium, eventually became developers?

Also, I’m not too convinced by people who were such ardent gamers they became video game creators. That’s like saying, “Gee, I loved crack so much, I went to Colombia and started my own business and now I’m rich.”

How about the educational merits of videogames?

Video games are educational? Sorry, people, I do not believe for one second you are learning quantum physics while you are shooting down zombies. Or that you got your scholarship to MIT by using the skills you learned shooting guerrillas.

About the only insult missing from Fisher’s column is a quip about gamers living in their parent’s darkened basement—something to look forward to in her next blog perhaps.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. sharpshooterbabe says:

    I went to look at other people’s comments on her blog & one guy points out what stories she has written & say sthat the ice cream truck w/the song that goes around the neighorhood was created by satan too.



    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  2. Baruch_S says:

    Wow, anyone complaining that Christians or any other group overreact to BS only has to come here to see a bunch of gamers overreact. We need to stop taking ourselves so seriously, and some people really need to get off their high horses.

  3. Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    I left this comment on BigMamma´s Blog (sorry, Grumpy Mom):

    For the people who think she is trolling, let me say that I made a comment about her weight and asking her to make an article about obesity because it is a real social problem, and using the same tone she is using with gamers. They deleted the post.

    If she were trolling for real, then everything goes and she should not (or her moderator) being deleting any post. In the case she is properly trolling, she should take any kind of comment.

    I´m glad to see the vast majority of gamers are intelligent and polite enough to make great comments without recur to insults (even if she doesn´t deserve any kind of civility, if you let me say).

    Anyways, she thinks this is funny, comparing a great number of kids and adults with crack addicts or dealers, when in the real world (a place she hardly know) being an addict to a real subtance is not a matter of game when you are a journalist or a columner in a serious publication (yeah, she said it´s humor, but she fails at being actually humorous).

    And video game addiction is still not recognized as a disease for american authorities because for 20 years nobody can get a concensous about it and there is not enough evidence even when millions of people are playing any kind of game in the last years. Millions of normal people against a bunch of idiots and troubled individuals like the stupid video she posted trying to desmostrate her points (that doesn´t prove anything, and Tyra sucks, by the way).

    But she isn´t listening because is too funny. I again invite her to write an article about obesity. Is gonna be more easy to make a funny article about "fat people" because there is actually more evidence about it that "video games addiction".

    As I said before, you fail at tolerance, research, as being funny, etc.

    And here is an article about a lovely guy named Jack Thompson, who lost his job as a lawyer for lying every single time he could and also talked trash about gamers and games. You are walking the same path. Enjoy.



    My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

  4. Erik says:

    Yeah, you know, because there are no smart nerds right?

    Perhaps someone should tip her off to the LHC joke involving a headcrab hat and a crowbar, and how quickly the people there caught on.  I would like her to try and say that the people working there are not phenomenally brilliant.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  5. Werrick says:

    I know some of you think she’s just a troll, or that it’s a joke or something… I don’t think that’s the case.

    The blog is written and posted in the Humour section of the site… fair enough. However, I think that has more to do with the idea that the blogs themselves are supposed to be of the Dave Barry variety; humurous, but often pointed and with a message that is serious. I think she means it. I think she tried to phrase it in a way that like-minded people would find amusing… but I actually think she thinks these things about gaming.

    Moreover, I feel sorry for her. She’s clearly under-educated and under-exposed. She probably had her first kid when she was in her very early twenties or even late teens, severely restricting her ability to experience life and the world. I don’t know much about her, but her polarized way of approaching issues seems to indicate a fundamentalism, probably religious, but I’m also not ruling out the "Cult of Oprah".

    All in all, she’s likely harmless. Lots of people have blogs… most make zero difference whatsoever.

  6. Adamas Draconis says:

    Well you are a touch pale. But on the other hand. Your wife is a very lovely woman. Grats!

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  7. PHX Corp says:

    Already mentioned It^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

  8. Kincyr says:

    complete edit: someone posted there pointing out that both blog posts were under the humor section

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  9. MechaTama31 says:

    She’s just a troll, and the gaming media is feeding her.  These two blog posts have probably had more views each than all of her other posts put together, so I guess her little stunt worked.

    I realize it’s gaming related "news", but some things are so asinine that they are not worth dignifying with a response, or even an acknowledgement.

  10. KayleL says:

    1) I think this mom is not serious, just a troll.

    2) As for the attack on religion, as much as I have much against religious views, this is not where near representative to Christianity. It’s like using the Columbine kids as example of gamers.

  11. TBoneTony says:

    As far as educational games go, I would have to bring up the example of Where in the World is Carman Sandiago. Great fun game, flying all over the world to catch criminals who stole world artifacts that are so big that they have to bring a truck just to steal them. When you fly to different countries you visit the countries major cities.

    So in any case, this mother has got everything wrong because she only thinks that videogames are about shooting things, where I on the other hand have got a far more better idea of what videogames are because I have PLAYED videogames and have understood ever since I was a kid that videogames are more than just shooting aliens or zombies.


  12. Meohfumado says:

    The more Christians I meet, the more I appreciate lions.


    "You know what I wish? I wish all the scum of the Earth had one throat and I had my hands about it."

  13. asmodai says:

    This is me…


    As you can see, from my easily 30+ hours a week gaming(plenty of FPS and other violent games), I am a deathly pale shut in with no job (who certainly couldn’t afford a honey moon to the US from Australia), no prospects and obviously no loving wife.  Plus I’m probably maladjusted and ready to explode at any second…

    Stereotypes are pointless and this women has, probably completely by accident, managed to troll so many people it’s not funny.  Giving the nutballs air time gives them far more credibility than they deserve.  Her viewpoint wasn’t credible to begin and only the other nutballs are going to believe her, why do we legitimise her viewpoint by giving it an opposition?

  14. PHX Corp says:

    I’m getting sick and tired of the Out of touch mom vs GP/Kotaku/Destructoid Baseball bat a thon(as in Beating the dead horse), The person Should have Never post the videogames are invented by the devil Blog post, Should of never happened.

    Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

  15. Michael Chandra says:

    I’m studying Computer Science because of RPG Maker. I discovered RPG Maker by downloading ROMS. So yes, without games I wouldn’t be doing this. I’d probably have dropped out of math. I wouldn’t have been online for ten years either, wouldn’t have improved my english like this, would have had far less challenges, wouldn’t have joined a gaming club and gone out with mates. Without games I would be less social than I am now.

  16. dsparil says:

    I remeber one episode of the simpsons where Bart is playing a videogame about blowing up state capitals but throws the controller down when he realises its educational.

  17. gellymatos says:

    Actually, I would say our greatest alley is logic. We’re right, and they’re wrong due to their fallacies.

  18. josh111888 says:

    People, do not go to that woman’s blog and respond.  She is just a lonely, useless human being who took a fictional book too seriously as a child and now thinks that everything is the devil.  If you stop giving her attention, then she’ll stop writing. 

      Hail Satan!

  19. gamegod25 says:

    Regardless of whether or not it’s meant to be satire, it’s still reinforcing ignorance and stereotypes.

  20. SpiralGray says:

    Regarding the educational merits of videogames… you make fun of her comment but don’t offer any sort of rebuttal. Quite frankly that makes you as bad as her. I suspect there are some videogames that are educational to one degree or another (for example, Scribblenauts or Brain Age) but the people commenting on her statement are probably mostly playing L4D, CoD, Halo, and the like, and while I enjoy playing those games myself, there’s nothing remotely educational about them (and "but, but, but, it improves my hand/eye coordination" isn’t "educational").

  21. Cerabret100 says:

    I’m not against regulation of gaming time, in fact i encourage it in younger children who aren’t quite capable of saying enough is enough (hey, even i take breaks after 3 or 4 hours), but to flat out refuse to accept the medium just shows ignorence.

    but i get a laugh because you know what? these people can’t win. these anti-video game people are destined to ridicule and failure because we have the greatest ally possible: Time. they get old, move out, we move in, and nobody proceeds to give a shit about the newest "outrage" because they’ll be as commonplace to us as violent movies.

  22. gellymatos says:

    This article is to old. If you want to see a more recent example of Vald’s view on religion, see the "On Games and Religion" article". One of his threads became an argument with me and starts out a little above this pic:

    It continues for a while. In fact, the last post on the article is our argument.

  23. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    All this crap about proving whether something exists or not…

    Why does it make me think of Umineko No Naku Koro Ni?


    "A Chrono Trigger is anything that unleashes its will or desire to change history!" -Gaspar

  24. Erik says:

    Wow, most of that stuff on that inconsistencies page that they try to bring up as an inconsistency is so paper thin that anyone with any mote of brain power can decipher it.  Such as Adam being fortold to die when he ate the apple then lived on for so many years.  It’s pretty easy to see that the death being refered to was losing his place in the garden and not his physical death years later.  Then with God asking Caine where Abel was, the author thinking that this was some sort of admission on God’s behalf of not being omnicient.  When I was young and I broke something in my parents’ house they would ask me if I broke it, even if they damn well know I did.  It wasn’t that they were trying to figure out if I did or not, but they were granting me the opportunity to come clean.

    As far as your beef with thinking that Christians are all luddites who all think that the Earth is but 6000 years old, apparently you aren’t aware that this isn’t universally accepted in the Church.  Hence the arguments and division between young earth and old earth creationists.  But really. go on thinking that all Christians are the same and are all anti-intellectuals.  Are all jews bankers in your world also?

    But before you try to come at me with labels bear in mind that I really don’t consider myself a Christian.  To be quite frank I’m not sure if I consider myself to be agnostic or atheist.  I don’t know what I believe.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  25. Neeneko says:

    While it is true that they probably can not STOP the fringe, the vast majority do not even try.  

    They do not even raise their voices, and often they end up using the same retoric that the fringe use, which gives the fringe a bridge to mainstream sociaity… in other words, the make themselves look mainstream to mainstream and fringe to fringe (or at least let both sides believe the are ‘with them’) which in the fringe’s case reenforces their believe/powerstructure.  They make the fringe feel less fringe, give them the illusion that the mainstream is with them, and convinently do not bother to correct the image.

    And often when you do see christian leaders activly speak out against the fringe element, you also see the mainstream leaders quietly distance themselves from them.

  26. Godkarmachine says:

    Hello there, I’m a fundamentalist nut, and I believe that is a metaphor.

    – Stand back! I have an opinion, and I’m not afraid to use it.

  27. Nessmk2 says:

    I honestly think it’s less ‘leaders don’t try to stop the fringe’ and more ‘they can’t stop the fringe’. Think about it. That’s what makes them the fringe. Others with radical (and usually misinformed) beliefs listen when people say "Hey, here are facts to the contrary, you can believe what you want, but stop afiliating yourself with us if you want to keep talking about this in public." And thusly you don’t hear from them like you do the fringe.


    Likewise, you hear about the fringe more because they’re unusual. Imagine how dull this site would be if every time someone on the internet said "Eh, I kinda don’t like games" it was reported on. Major news outlets HAVE to focus on the exception because otherwise people will get bored and tune out. If they interviewed the ‘typical’ Christian on TV, you’d get much more mild, much less exciting results that wouldn’t devolve into name-calling and shouthing matches, and therefore the audiences would turn the channel.

    It’d be like having an informed video game debate on the news. It would be a calm, mellow afair that would be (to the general public) quite boring as two experts debated the finer points of ESRB ratings and chosing the right game for your child. It’s much more exciting to have an expert in a suit and tie say that games make people into maniacs and have the fringe gamers (the ones that give other gamers a bad name. The steriotype friendless, parent-basement-dwelling pastey-faced semi-psycho that oggles anything that has breasts) ‘defend’ their hobby, making the ‘expert’ look absolutely right.

  28. Im_not_Herbert says:

    I see your-



    and I’ll call with-



    I’ll also suggest you watch the documentary "Expelled".  It shows how evolutionists systematically suppress any evidence that suggests intelligent design.

    Just some things to think about.


    Your Yak is Weak!

  29. Beacon80 says:

    I used the term less quite specifically, as neither side has any real proof (if they did, we wouldn’t be having this conversation).  The way I’m seeing things (and you may disagree) is like this:

    There is no proof or evidence that there is no God.  As has been brought up, it’s virtually impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist.

    However, there are a million tiny little things that suggest the possibility of a God (and not necessarily the Christian God, just a God).  Yes, it’s largely spiritual things, often anecdotal, and are hard to quantify, and maybe there’s some scientific explanation behind them.  But if you have something, and you have no clue why it is this way, you can’t rule out any explanation until you have a more likely one.

    I used the expression "even less" because even a tiny amount is more than 0.  I’ve seen things and read stories and even experienced events myself that make me think there might be something Up There, but there’s nothing that truly suggests there isn’t other than "Well, we don’t really know."

    And that’s really my point.  I don’t have a problem with him saying he doesn’t believe in God.  It’s the way he phrases it as an absolute fact, every single time, like he actually knows this is true, when he has no more proof than I do.

  30. Thomas McKenna says:

    While I feel your improperly giving meaning on former arguments of his with his later arguments, swiming the wrong way up the logical stream like a salmon, I’ll give this one to you.  He’s wrong for saying that there’s more evidence in favor of one side of this argument, since there isn’t.  

    But as far as suggestions in this debate go, he used "suggest" to mention his own personal beliefs, but you used it to try and make a point.  From what I’ve read of Beacon, I don’t follow his logic, but I like yours less.  I’m simply pointing out to you that if you’re basing your own argument on suggestions, which you basically have to do as you personally have said that you have no proof in the matter, then you are on the same level as what you denounce.  Thus, being so vehemently against christians is no different than a christian being vehemently against atheists.  You are denouncing actions which you are personally making for your own viewpoint.


  31. Thomas McKenna says:

    I’m coming from the standpoint of an agnostic, so it’s meaningless to argue with me whether god exists or not as I’ll just simply say "who knows?"  I’m simply putting forth counter points to what you seem to use to justify your stance.

    I don’t hold much with Pascal’s wager, but that wasn’t meant to address the existence of god from its onset, nor did I ever pose that was it’s purpose.  I just said that it argued why, logically, it is in one’s best interest to believe in a higher power.

    Also, my argument, as far as I can tell, isn’t flawed against the riddle.  I’m simply saying that the author failed to take into account his own ignorance, thinking that his own view of good and evil is absolute in the case of his argument.  If there were a higher power, then it certainly wouldn’t work in ways that would be evident to us, especially since it would have had to do so without leaving any trace of its meddling.  So, since we can’t perceive of the ways a higher power would work, then they would indeed be mysterious to us.  Failing to take this into account makes the author’s riddle fail in logic.

  32. Valdearg says:

    Originally Quoted by Beacon80:

    "You describe God as "fake" and "imaginary", but you have even less proof that He doesn’t exist than they do in that He does."


    "However, there are things in this world that suggest the possibility that some sort of God exists (hence, my Agnosticism), whereas actually proving something doesn’t exist is generally impossible."

    Like I said, I was providing him "Suggestions" because he implied that "Suggestions" are perfectly valid arguments in this debate.

  33. Valdearg says:

    Pascal’s Wager doesn’t address the possibility of whether or not God exists, only whether or not it’s a better bet to believe in God or not. So there goes THAT argument.

    As far as your argument against the riddle I posted, your argument is flawed, as well. It’s a well worded equivalent of the hackneyed "God works in mysterious ways" argument.

    Suffice it to say, there is SO MUCH suffering, evil, anger, pain, and sickness in the world that I would be hard pressed to believe that ALL of it is intentional, and part of God’s greater plan for good.

  34. Thomas McKenna says:

    He said no such thing.  Your bias simply put that meaning in there.

    "And no, I have no proof that God exists.  If I did, I wouldn’t be Agnostic, would I?  However, there are things in this world that suggest the possibility that God exists, whereas actually proving something doesn’t exist is generally impossible." is what he said.  He’s simply saying that there are things that suggest the presence of a supernatural being.  I wouldn’t necessarily say that myself, but to each his own.  He’s not weighing one set of "suggestions" against another, saying that there is more to prove that there is a god than there isn’t one.  He wouldn’t be making that argument in the first place, seeing how he claims to be an agnostic.

    Plus, if you claim to have no proof, what are your grounds for argument?  You can’t prove anything, so why so high and mighty with your position?  You have nothing more to stand on than someone who is religious arguing their point.

  35. Thomas McKenna says:

    I counter with Pascal’s Wager, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

    A "LOGICAL" exercise that argues why it is in one’s best interest to believe in God.

    I, however, find it to be rubbish, but I simply post it because I don’t like your tone and it shows that logic alone does not denounce religion.

    Also, the riddle you linked is also rubbish.  It’s being posed from a viewpoint that refuses to admit that if there was a god, that he’d have a greater sense of things than would be available to us.  Seeing how in most religions, gods are fairly omniscient, thus they would be privy to a greater sense of knowledge than us, thus what appears to us to be evil or the gods’ unwillingness to prevent it may not actually be the case.  Not taking this into account is why his argument fails on a logical standpoint.

  36. Valdearg says:

    Frankly, I’m too tired to respond to this completely. Allow me to say, however, that I’ve never posited that God can be completely disproven. It’s impossible to gather physical evidence on something that doesn’t exist. The comment you are responding to, however, was a response to another person saying that Religious people have more evidence that "suggests" the existence of God than I have that doesn’t. That is why I listed those "suggestions" that you so ephatically jumped on.

  37. Valdearg says:

    I see the distinction. It’s an interesting comment, though, because that would imply that those who say they "Believe" God exists, like Christians, only "Assume" he exists.

  38. Thomas McKenna says:

     You lost your argument at this point.  Once you start using "suggestions" to fuel your argument rather than proof.  Suggestions are completely personal, and have no bearing in proving or disproving anything.  At this point, you’re basically saying that there is no god because you yourself personally believe that there are things which suggest to you that he doesn’t exist.  A logical argument this does not make.

    Now don’t get me wrong, people who practice religion will run with the exact same argument you’ve been making.  To them, there is enough to suggest that a god or many do exist, because they’re also using suggestions which to them outnumber objecting views.  However, you’re trying to put your own place above theirs, and you lost that attempted high ground.  Once you say that you’re not running on facts, but instead feel that there are more things which suggest to you that god doesn’t exist, then you make yourself to be no better or different than the people you’re denouncing.  You’re just simply taking up the contrary point.

    Also, it’s not much to say he (now an Agnostic, like myself) was once a poor Christian.  Of course he was a poor Christian!  He’s now an Agnostic.  Also, your comment that "most christian denominations believe that everything in the bible … is factually correct," is not accurate.  Not even the largest denomination (Roman Catholic) doesn’t endorse that.  Pope John Paul II endorsed this when he was alive, and even went so far as to say that evolution is real and fits with the Bible when the book is looked at in a non-factual light, but rather as a book of literature.

    So, stop with the diatribe.  When you WHARRGARBL like this, you make yourself to be no better than the people you try to denounce.

  39. Beacon80 says:

    You clearly don’t see the distinction I’m talking about, and until you do, there’s no point in continuing this conversation.

  40. Valdearg says:

    I say there is no God. It’s my belief, if you will. Given the evidence I’ve seen, and logical arguments I’ve heard and made, I am fairly confident in my opinon.

    I’ve already said that if someone were to come along with proof that God exists, I’d alter my hypothesis. Until then, he doesn’t exist.

  41. Monte says:

    heh, unlike those "reasearchers" that used flawed studies to "prove" hypothesis, like games causing violence and what-not…

    All in all, a true scientist would not be an atheist but an agnostic…

  42. Beacon80 says:

    But there’s a flaw in your logic.  You don’t diferentiate between assumtion and belief.  Given no solid evidence, a scientist will assume X does not exist for the purposes of his experiments, but does not necessarily believe that X does not exist.

    It’s like life on alien planets.  We don’t have any proof of it, but no true scientist would tell you that this means there isn’t any, only that there might not be.

    Do you see the distinction?  A true scientist always leaves room for knowledge he doesn’t have.  You don’t.  You flat-out say that there is no God.

  43. Monte says:

    "MK 16:17-18 A believer can handle snakes or drink poison and not experience any harm.
    (Note: Many unfortunate believers have died as a result of handling snakes and drinking poison. This kind of assertion negates the Bible as a useful guidebook for life.)"

    ever consider for a second that this was a METAPHOR?

  44. Valdearg says:

    I’ve already stated that I cannot actually prove he doesn’t exist, since you cannot gather PHYSICAL evidence on something that doesn’t exist.

    I was merely providing you evidence as to why I am confident he does not. You originally stated that the Faithful have more evidence SUPPORTING his existence than I have that doesn’t support it. While physical evidence DISPROVING his existence is a logical falicy, like I stated above, I’ve provided you with Logical exercises and the reason I don’t believe in him. If somebody were to prove his existence, I’d convert, but until then, much like they would do in a Scientific study, he’s classified as non-existent until such time as someone proves his existence.

  45. Beacon80 says:

    Ah, strawmanning.  We’ve been over this.  Proving that the Bible is wrong (or poorly interpreted, as that’s clearly supposed to be an analogy) only proves that we are falliable.

    Also, your statement that the burden of proof is on me is faulty.  If I came here and said "God exists" and you said "How do you know?" then burden of proof would be on me.  Here, however, you came here and said "God does not exist", so the burden of proof is on you.

    This is even more true, since I have never once claimed that God exists, merely that it’s possible He does, whereas you can’t go a single post without clarifying that He most certainly does not.

    To take your example and apply your own logic, if a scientist believes there’s a new species of primate, but cannot find any evidence, that means there is absolutely no chance there are any new species of primates.

  46. Valdearg says:

    I’ve already provided you plenty. Look through those links, that show many, many flaws with the holy book Christians base thier faith off of.

    My favorite:

    MK 16:17-18 A believer can handle snakes or drink poison and not experience any harm.
    (Note: Many unfortunate believers have died as a result of handling snakes and drinking poison. This kind of assertion negates the Bible as a useful guidebook for life.)

    That being said, the lack of proof is as good a suggestion that he doesn’t exist as any. Occam’s razor, etc.

    There’s also The riddle of Epicurus, a LOGICAL exercise. Just because physical evidence doesn’t necessarily exist, Logic should suffice. The Burden of Proof is on you, not me. If a scientist claims there’s a new species of primate, it’s his job to find physical evidence and prove to his fellows that this new species exists. It’s not officially recognized to exist until that evidence is found. I could claim that C’thulu exists, and is responsible for all tragedy and death in the world. That clearly doesn’t make it true, and the burden to PROVE it would be on ME. If I were like you, and other Christians, I would be screaming "YOU CAN’T PROVE C’THULU DOESN’T EXIST! THEREFORE, HE MUST! ALL HAIL THE OLD ONE! ALL HAIL THE GREAT C’THULU!!" This is EXACTLY what you do when you tell me to prove to YOU that God doesn’t exist.

    Now that that’s out there. Prove to ME that God exists, and I will recant my ways.

  47. Valdearg says:

    You can respond directly to his posts, rather than starting a new tier every time. You’d think that was obvious, since EVERY comment has a "reply" button.

  48. Neeneko says:

    There is a saying, ‘No drop believes it is responsible for the flood’.

    Though props to this Dean person.  This is exactly what we need more figures doing at the local level.  But not enough do.  Too many, even people in positions of power and leadership in the christian community, just sit back and say nothing and let the fringe people control the dialogue.

    I have gathered that among the leadership, the is a fear regarding speaking out against the fringe for fear or being branded ‘not christian enough’ or a ‘troublemaker’, or ‘xyz sympathizer’, which can potentially cause them loss among their followers.  So most just stay quiet and write off the frige as ‘they are not us, so I do not have to mention them’ and thus take the safe/easy way out.

  49. gellymatos says:

    Actually, not all christians take the bible literally. I will use the catholic church as an example. There are many stories that catholics see as metaphorical, such as the creation story or Adam and Eve. This isn’t absolute law, it is just that catholics are allowed to ponder other possiblities. How else could catholics be able to believe in evolution? Of course, most of the stories are seen as literal, it is just some aren’t (to us). That is also why we have a hierchy of scholars and a pope, to help find the correct interpretation.


  50. Saxy says:

    "You know.. If you were going to respond to Zerodash, I suggest you respond to Zerodash. Your response has nothing to do with what I posted."


    Pardon me if I’m mistaken, your highness, but I believe Zerodash posted somewhere down the line on this thread. Point taken, I’m late to the party, but I don’t think I ever specifically mentioned you, and unless Zerodash posted somewhere else on this page that I haven’t read yet, there are no more direct ways to contact him than by posting here.

  51. Beacon80 says:

    Name one thing that suggest that there is no God, Goddess, or pantheon of Deities.  I want something specific, not just a lack of proof.  One thing that makes it less likely that a God exists.

    And no, I did not break my faith by believing the Bible should be interpreted.  Many denominations agree that parts of the Bible are metaphors and analogies.  If you really want to get technical about it, any translation of the Bible is already being interpreted, and therefore not taken completely literally.

  52. Monte says:

    "Also, when you were a Practicing Christian, you were breaking your faith by not taking the Bible Literally."

    So in other words, all christians are fantacics because all christians who are sensible are bad christians and therefore don’t count. Man it’s like whats-his-name all over again; commentor who got banned… all i recall was that he was a militant atheiest dickhead, who always brought up his hate of other religions… pretty sure he used that same logic as you did. "Any christian who doesn’t take the bible literally are bad christians"… he used that to help validate his hate for all religions and shut up all those who tried to tell him about the more sensible majority; because if you are not an ignorant, hatefilled, god fearing christian, then you are obviously not a christian. 

  53. Valdearg says:

    You know.. If you were going to respond to Zerodash, I suggest you respond to Zerodash. Your response has nothing to do with what I posted.

  54. Saxy says:

    I’m still astounded that some of you think we have some sort of power over the free speech of others… we’re regular christians, not the Chinese goverment…


    "I’m talking about things like leaving congregations where the pastors/priests preach things they dont agree with- IE homophobia.  Why is most of the backlash against this fat bitch from Gamers and not offended Christians?"

    Firstly, I’d like to say that most of the crazy Christians are not pastors. Jack thompson, this chick as far as I know, etc, are just people with really loud opinions. I do like that you’ve actually gone out and given us some example of how you think we can control others, and boycott is an option for pastors, I suppose. However, what do you expect us to do about those who don’t rely on us? How do we effectively silence them?

    And for your question, I want you to think about it really hard for a moment. Why would there be more gamers on that page that christians? I wonder…. hmmm…. maybe it’s because…. nah, impossible.


    I’ll sleep on it and get back to you. And by ‘it’ I mean the question and not the ‘fat bitch’ (which, by the way, is a great mature way to prove your point).

  55. Valdearg says:

    "And no, I have no proof that God exists.  If I did, I wouldn’t be Agnostic, would I?  However, there are things in this world that suggest the possibility that God exists, whereas actually proving something doesn’t exist is generally impossible.  You yourself say that it’s impossible to prove or disprove His existence, yet you seem so absolutely sure that He doesn’t exist, despite admittedly not having any proof."

    As you have no concrete proof, I have no concrete proof. Yet, as soon as you say that, you claim that there are things in this world that SUGGEST the possibility that God exists. Guess what. There are many, MANY, MANY more things that SUGGEST that God doesn’t exist.

    Also, when you were a Practicing Christian, you were breaking your faith by not taking the Bible Literally. It’s God’s word. Most Christian Denomonations believe that everything written in the bible happened, and everything is factually correct. If you doubt any part of the Bible, you are not following your faith correctly, and might as well not believe at all.


  56. Beacon80 says:

    Two things.  Assuming for a moment, that the Bible is indeed the Word of God (I’m Agnostic).  It was transcribed by man, edited by man, and translated by man.  Not to mention had to be given to man in terms he, at the time, would understand.  Proving that the Bible is flawed does not prove that God does not exist.  Even when I was a practicing Christian, I never believed the Bible should be taken literally.

    And no, I have no proof that God exists.  If I did, I wouldn’t be Agnostic, would I?  However, there are things in this world that suggest the possibility that some sort of God exists (hence, my Agnosticism), whereas actually proving something doesn’t exist is generally impossible.  You yourself say that it’s impossible to prove or disprove His existence, yet you seem so absolutely sure that He doesn’t exist, despite admittedly not having any proof.

  57. Valdearg says:

    "You describe God as "fake" and "imaginary", but you have even less proof that He doesn’t exist than they do in that He does."

    Ha…Hahaha…HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAH!! You really believe there is MORE evidence that God exists, rather than he doesn’t? That, alone, makes you an idiot of such proportions that it’s a waste of time to talk to you.

    Suffice it to say, there are plenty of sections from the Bible, that book that is taken as God’s literal word, that have been SOUNDLY disproven by Geology, Archaeology, and Science.



    The Bible is WRACKED with inconsistencies and errors. That, alone, should force you to question that this "infalliable" book, that God’s word, is incorrect. The logic here is that if the Bible is literally infalliable, as most Christians believe, and if it really is God’s word, then why are there mistakes in it? Why are there contradictions and discrepancies? The existence of these, alone, either prove that God, himself, if he exists, is faliable, and that major foundation of the Christian faith is incorrect, or that God doesn’t exist at all, and all of this crap is just one big scam.

    In addition to that, you have absolutely NO proof, ZERO, NADA that God exists. There is no way to prove or disprove such a thing, which makes it incredibly convienient to defend, but given the inconsistencies between what is taught in the Bible and in Church, and what has been discovered as real by Science and Logical research, it’s enough to support the argument that Religious Faith is nothing but a steaming pile of illogical crap.

  58. Beacon80 says:

    Oh, militant aetheists, in some ways you’re even funnier than the militant believers.

    You describe God as "fake" and "imaginary", but you have even less proof that He doesn’t exist than they do in that He does.  You complain about them pushing their beliefs on you in the same breath that you try to push yours on everybody else.

  59. gellymatos says:

    Vald, your not helping the argument against the few intolerent christians if you yourself are going to be intolerant to the all christians.  Please stop mocking our faith just because a few (by few, I mean in percentage, not number) christians have became misguided. And I, as well as other christians, do cry out against the christians who give the majority a bad name (Reverand Wright comes to mind). But we can’t just force them to shut the hell up. Because they make for sensational stories, they are the ones who get most of the press. Religion makes up one of four things than the news media can never get right: Religon, videogames, military, and politics. Name any others I have forgotten.

    On the other hand, that was a good post on her second article. I liked it.

  60. Valdearg says:

    There are too many people in this country who base thier behavior and moral compass on thier imaginary friend. Even worse, these people think that they have the right to FORCE the morals of this absolutely FAKE diety on to others who are smart and sane enough to see through the bullshit.

    If I were to walk up to someone and start spouting crap about how I have this invisible, all powerful friend who can do anything, but doesn’t, I’d probably be locked up in a psych ward. This is even moreso if I start telling people that my invisible friend tells me how to behave, and when I want something, all I need to do is drop to my knees and talk to myself to get it. I’d be in a padded room faster than you can blink.

    However, since these people believe in a "Popular" Fake, Imaginary, Invisible friend, it’s seen as perfectly normal to devote your lives to him. Hell, people don’t even question them when they bow thier head and mutter to themselves, hoping that thier imaginary friend will get off his fake ass and help them out, rather than helping themselves.

    Frankly, It’s insane.

    Also, I totally agree, Zero. "Sane" Christians, if they exist, need to shout down the moronic "fringe" they claim exists. They need to leave churches that preach the hateful vitriol, they need to tell the angry, hateful protesters that they are WRONG, and that thier behavior is NOT what "God" preaches. They need to abandon insane, clearly debunked ideas like the Creation Theory and embrace science and technology. They need to vocally and openly CONDEMN the stupidity of the fringe Christians, and they need to stop enabling the fringe to continue to spout thier hate and lies.

    Just like I vocally condemn any gamers who step out of line and make a bad name for us, like Richard Deane Langworthy, I expect Christians to regularly condemn and voice thier opinions about the fringe.

    However, I believe that Zero is right. They won’t. My guess is that they have no problem with the hate and anger being spread by the "fringe", since it’s directed at people and groups who they are taught to hate, like Gays.

  61. Beacon80 says:

    If you had a sibling who, in public, started screaming and throwing their own feces around, would you not have an obligation to them and yourself to stop them?

    Yes, but if it was my 18th cousin thrice removed on my mother’s side, I’d probably just duck behind something and wait for someone else to take care of it.

    You can’t hold each and every Christian accoutable for what some nutso does.  Especially someone like this.  Regardless of how serious she is, giving her attention will only make the situation worse.  Sometimes the best action is inaction.

    That being said, I have seen Christians stand up against the extremists.  After the 9/11 bombings, the 700 Club came out and said that this was an act of punishment against the gays.  The next Sunday, the Dean of my father’s church (amusingly enough named "Dean") addressed his congregation and specifically denounced the 700 Club and their statements.

  62. Zerodash says:

    I know plenty of "good Christians" and "good" Christians.  Like my response above, the "good" ones just sit aside and let the fanatics be their voice and the voice of their faith. They enable and embolden the freaks to dominate the faith- just look at how strong the support for Creationism and anti-gay rights is in America.  The "sensible" Christians who don’t buy into that bullshit are just as responsible simply because they don’t do anything about it. 

    If you had a sibling who, in public, started screaming and throwing their own feces around, would you not have an obligation to them and yourself to stop them? 

    Any Christian who is "sensible" and puts their mythology into context has a responsibility to themselves AND Christianity to keep the lunatics in the fringe.  I have yet to see anything like this take place in the faith. 

  63. TBoneTony says:

    You know, I almost felt like she was kidding when she said that Lord Valdamort created videogames.

    Another insane person who has got no control over their parenting and blames videogames for everything I guess.

    You know what? She is right, there is such a thing called Videogame Addiction, but it is not gamers who are addicted.

    It is people like her how are so obsessed with blaming videogames for problems in society that their minds melt into jelly and start saying silly things.

    I call it "The Addiction to Blaming Videogames and Gamers addiction"

    Oh, and if you think Jack Thompson was bad, well I think we have found someone who is just as worse as he was.

    But let her brag, it only means that people will see how silly she is and nobody would ever want to associate with people like her.

    Oh, and considering that she gets PAID to annoy Game Developers, I guess women who are strippers have a far more better morals in their working life than she ever will hope to archive if she thinks bullying game developers ever gets her anywhere.

    So what I am saying is, if she does not stop her ranting, she is only going to hurt herself in the process.


  64. Valdearg says:

    While I still think their religious beliefs are stupid, I’m certainly less hostile to them, and don’t hate them like I hate those who follow anti-gay religions.

    Like I said, you can believe what you want, until you start to violate my own personal freedoms with those beliefs. Up until that point, you are cool, when you cross it, you’ve become something I need to fight against.

  65. Erik says:

    And what of the Christians who are fighting on your side for the very same freedoms?

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  66. Baruch_S says:

    No, I mean hypocritical as in criticizing a group for something while being just as bad or worse himself. Two wrongs don’t make a right no matter who you think is wrong.

    I also think your argument is ridiculous. So you’re going to become just as bad as the bad Christians to fight them? Then you’re not any better than them, and other people are going to have to stop you from doing exactly what the fundamentalist Christians are doing now. Someone has to give up the intolerance eventually, or we’ll just end up in a stupid cycle where the majority gets to opress the minority.

    Try fighting back by being mature, respectful, intelligent individuals instead of foaming-at-the-mouth idiots. You’ll look better than the foaming-at-the-mouth fools you’re up against, and you’ll avoid polzarizing the issue to the point where nothing can get done.

  67. Valdearg says:

    If by Hypocritical you mean intolerant of Christians while complaining about thier intolerance, you have to realize that Christians are the ones on the Oppressive side. They need to be pushed back and fought against. We can’t just sit there and say: "Ok, Christians! Take our freedoms away!"

  68. Baruch_S says:

    Unfortunately it is. You’d think people would just ignore him by now; he does this same old hypocritical act in every topic relating to religion and in many that don’t have any connection.

  69. Ashkihyena says:

    Ignoring the intolerant Christian bashing going up there, we have another Jack Thompson wannabe on our hands here.

  70. Father Time says:

    You’re right, we call book readers book worms, and movie fans, movie buffs.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  71. potatojones83 says:

    I might be getting that confused with something else, they tend to blow up everything at the end anyway. This is probably arguing over semantics on this point, but if the shockwave killed the fish then technically the fish was still never actually shot. Again, it’s probably sematics because even though the bullet might never have hit the fish, the discharge of a firearm caused the death of said fish…in a barrel

  72. Im_not_Herbert says:

    "You Christians don’t do shit to keep the lunatic fringe of your faith in check."

    And how would you know this?  Are you involved in the Christian community?  Do you attend churches accross the US, do you listen to Christian radio programming, read Christian books?

    Your hatred of Christians seems to me irrational.


    Your Yak is Weak!

  73. Neeneko says:

    Eh, while I do not agree with most of your rant, I think you do have a point here.

    Among the evangelical movement, there is a remarkable lack of responsiblity when it comes to the fringe people.  Many groups seem to behave as if they do not expect people to take what they are saying seroiusly and then disavow themselves when people actually do.. writing off the results of their behavior as ‘well, those people are not true christians’.

    You have churches encouraging, feeding, egging on the extremists, then stepping back when someone goes to far.  In a way it is a perfect system… poke someone else into doing your dirty work for you and walk away with clean hands when they actually do go out and, say, blow up a clinic or kill some gay people.

  74. Monte says:

    "Why is most of the backlash against this fat bitch from Gamers and not offended Christians?"

    Could it be because she is an igsignificant piece of nothing that is not worhty of attention much less an actual responce? cause when it comes down to it, Anyone with half a brain will ignore what she has to say a label her a nutcase, and the only ones that will listen to her are those who are equally crazy as she is and are beyond help. Got better things to do with my time then yell at brick walls… oh wait…

  75. Beacon80 says:

    I think you’re getting that confused with another episode.  They discovered that you don’t even have to hit the fish to kill them.  The shockwave from the bullet hitting the water will do the trick.

  76. potatojones83 says:

    is like shooting fish in a barrel.


    The Mythbusters, well, busted that one. The only way there were able to shoot fish in a barrel was to bring out a jeep mounting gattling gun that tore the barrel into splinters.

    As for the topic at hand, I have to wonder. Who else, but like-minded people, is going to seriously listen to someone who voluntarily calls themselves "Frumpy Middle-aged Mom"? Besides, that picture of her wearing either a bad hippie flower crown or a brightly decorated tin-foil hat doesn’t exactly do much to help her case.

  77. Beacon80 says:

    I’m talking about things like leaving congregations where the pastors/priests preach things they dont agree with

    I’m guessing most Christians do leave congregations if they strongly disagree with the pastors/priests.  They probably just don’t make a big deal about it.

    Why is most of the backlash against this fat bitch from Gamers and not offended Christians?

    Because this is making its way around gaming news sites.  Not to mention, inciting gamers to yell and complain is like shooting fish in a barrel.

  78. Beacon80 says:

    Three things to consider:

    1) It’s not every Christian’s duty to keep the weirdos in check, and more than I can be held accountable for the geeks who hit on and stare at my female friends every time they go into a game shop.

    2) This woman has done nothing wrong.  Assuming that she’s actually serious (I’m increasingly certain this is all a joke), then she has every right to spout out her opinions, however misinformed they may be.

    3) How are the Christians supposed to keep her "in check"?  Hack her website?  Spam her blog?  There’s only really two possible responses here: Meaningless, juvenile retribution, or take the higher road and ignore her.

  79. Father Time says:

    I am not a Christian, although I wonder if you’ve done much of anything to help stem the tide of abusive language over a game’s voice chat? They’re an embarrassment to gamers and (hopefully) don’t represent the majority.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  80. Zerodash says:

    No.  No.  No.

    You Christians don’t do shit to keep the lunatic fringe of your faith in check.  For every Christian freak like this fat bitch and Jack Thompson, there are 10 "normal" Christians who just sit there and let them shit on the faith you supposedly love so much.

    Sorry, but until I see real attempts from you at bringing Christianity into the modern era, away from the superstition and Dark Age ideals, you "sensible" Christians are just enablers. 

  81. Zerodash says:

    3) I’m talking about things like leaving congregations where the pastors/priests preach things they dont agree with- IE homophobia.  Why is most of the backlash against this fat bitch from Gamers and not offended Christians?

  82. Zerodash says:

    "Gamer" is not a religion, ethnic group, or ethos.  We don’t call book readers "bookies" or movie fans "movers".  

  83. Baruch_S says:

    I don’t personally remember him ripping into any other religions, but other religions seldom make appearances on this site, either. Christianity, on the other hand, probably averages around one appearance per week, and Zerodash is always here to rip into it like he has for the past three years at least. Christianity is also probably the most prevalent religion in the US, so he’s more likely to respond to it anyway.

  84. mdo7 says:


    Well, have Zerodash ever show any hate to any other religion beside Christian (anyone can answer my question)?  Because we all know that for every religion, they’ll be a fanatics/extremists.  It’s the way it is.  I have a love-hate relationship when it comes to religion.  I never badmouth a religion for that reason.  I know in life, everything comes with a pro and con.     


  85. Baruch_S says:

    ITT: Zerodash shows how bigotted and hateful he is by stereotyping all Christians as bigotted and hateful. Just another case of the pot calling the kettle black. Nothing to new see here, folks, just an atheist hypocrite acting high and mighty. If you want another show, I’m sure he’ll do it again the next time someone mentions Christians.

  86. mdo7 says:



    You are an ignorant fool.  If you’re going to hate Christians, you’re going to have to hate every other religion also.  Because there are fanatics in other religion also, not only christians.  Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism have their own fanatics, and Extremists.  They can bash and bitch about video game also not only christian fanatic/radicalists.  Look, many people who have religion hate fanatic and extremist.  Many people said that manipulating religion as a weapon, and manipulating people is very much unforgivable and insult their religion.  Even real Muslim condenmed Al-Queda practice.  If a buddhist fanatic is form, I rather condenmed them then hate my religion and become athiest because religion comes with both good and bad.  In life, anything comes with both pro and con.  Religion is one of them.     


  87. Mycroft Holmes says:


    I know!  It’s just like those African Americans who break laws!  They’re really a detriment to their race.




    *If you can’t see the connection and the logical falicy of that statement; you need to do some research.

  88. Erik says:

    You and her, so so very much alike.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  89. Beacon80 says:

    And I hate people who judge large groups based on the actions of a minority.  People like Jack Thompson… and you.

    Seriously, I’m not even Christian (I’m Agnostic) and it bugs the hell out of me, because I know good Christians.  Hell, you probably know good Christians, you just haven’t noticed it.

  90. Father Time says:

    Than there’s very little difference between you and those who think that all gamers are shut-ins or immature or potential criminals.

    Seriously Christians that don’t say crazy stuff like this rarely get featured in the news so you’re less likely to hear about them.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  91. Zerodash says:

    Seriously, I fucking hate Christians, and people like this woman reaffirms my hatred.  Don’t give me that "not all of us are like that" line either, because I just don’t care anymore.

  92. sortableturnip says:

    Sortableturnip’s Law:  As an online discussion of video game violence grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Jack Thompson approaches 1

  93. Father Time says:

    "substitute Harry Potter’s Lord Voldemort for Satan as the specter behind evil videogames."

    OK I’m convinced it was Poe’s Law.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  94. TBoneTony says:

    You know, I am not even going to comment anything on my blog about her, instead I am just going to do an information history of how videogames were developed, and in the end I am just going to put in that…

    "And now you know that the first Videogames were made by a team of people working in science labs in University around the 50’s and 60’s, but it was Ralph Bear who pioneered the first ever commercial Videogame System called the Magnavox Odessy. Followed by the Atari 2600 console that was the first popular videogame console. Then the Nintendo NES, SEGA Genisis, Sony PlayStation, Microsoft XBox and then the Nintendo Wii along with so many other Videogame Consoles from each generation of systems featuring all different sorts of videogame experiences for all different sorts of people.

    Videogames were not created by Satan or Lord Voldamort, Videogames were created by people for people to play and enjoy."


    So you think that would be a better way of doing things by not commenting on her blog and instead write our own blogs about the history of videogames and where they came from?


  95. Vake Xeacons says:

    Forget it. She doesn’t deserve the honor of a rebuke or counter-argument. I’ve heard some whoppers in my day, but this "mom" takes the cake. No educational games? I just downloaded Oregon Trail (my first & favorite!!!) on the DSi last week, but this chic doesn’t even sound familiar with education. Even JT was better than this.

  96. TBoneTony says:

    Algol: "Thought the ages, a parent’s love outwhields any weapon. But knowing this, if you are misguided in your beliefs, you will only harm those who you wish to protect." 


    You know what? I know that woman will never listen to reason, so I will only comment here knowing that she will never understand people like us, if she wants to bully gamers and game developers, let her do it, it will only bite her in the ass once when people realize how silly she is.

    Although I do feel sad for her son, because he is the one who is going to be hurt the most when he reads what his mother thinks of gamers and game developers.

    I wish the boy all the best in life too, because he deserves to have a better life and a better state of mind than what his mom has got.


Comments are closed.