Starting at number 6:

*First ask her to put logic to video games not making someone violent (changing ideas and attitudes) but it does make people into misogynists (changing ideas and attitudes).

Second, point out that an article referencing a paper written about sexism that never really defines what is, and is not sexist (the author goes to the trouble to tell us about hostile and benevolent sexism, but never what *is sexist, exactly) is not really the most comforting beginning to a conversation about sexism. (It's important to define what is, and is not sexist behavior in a study because sometimes something being sexist comes down to opinion and circumstance. For example, holding a door open for a woman. Is it sexist to hold a door open for a woman? Is it only sexist to open a door for a woman if you're assuming she can't open the door for herself? How then do we know the intention is sexist, or if someone is just holding a door for a person behind them out of personal kindness? The door problem in itself is the prime example of why what is "sexist" must be defined in any paper or study focusing on it. And even then the study should definitely phrase it something like "if holding the door is considered sexist, then X statistic are engaging in sexist behavior." That study is pretty bad, and makes lots of leaps and assumptions about the intention of a video game maker's decision to put things in their game. (" Even in the rare occurrence when the game’s lead role is a woman (e.g., Lara Croft in Tomb Raider), she is still treated as an object of men’s fantasies" being the cream of the crop here on that one. The author of the study links to another study which also never provides any implication that Lara Croft is created with the intention to be the object of male fantasy, instead of more innocently as an action hero.)

*Third ask her if she thinks that using media outlets accused of corruption as a source to ask whether or not they're corrupt makes sense. (It's like asking a murderer if they did it.)

Fourth point out that hate mobs usually are pretty damn upfront about hating the people that they hate. Whether or not she just dismisses all of GG as people who are uninformed, I think it's pretty clear we're not a hate group, no matter where the origins of GG is. (I would also mention that GG is not a hivemind, and there will be dickweeds, but *you don't give a rat's ass about who Quinn sleeps with, and it's your belief that the majority of GG don't either. I personally consider Quinn selfish and abusive, but that's neither here nor there. I'm really worried about the fact that Grayson still refuses to apologize for his heinous breech of journalistic ethics when giving coverage to a game when he has a relationship with the person who made it that might have made him biased towards it in a way that would actually be harmful to his audience.)

Fifth ask her to consider the tone of the article, particularly the caption under the second picture of a tweet. Ask her exactly what's "inane" about a tweet encouraging someone's fellows in a language they'll all understand? If using common language is *inane to the author, what does it say about the author? Does she think the author is genuine in their concern over the state of gaming? Does she think the author likes gaming? Is the author, as someone who considers a subculture's slang inane someone who is likely a trustworthy individual to report on a certain topic?

Number 5:

The author of the article mentions " there's no direct connection between violent media and violent behaviour." and yet, "We're Being Taught That Only Violence Solves Problems." There is no more evidence that violent video games make someone *think more violent in the long run (or turn to it as a solution to a problem, in the claim here) than there is that they influence someone to commit it. In fact, statistics show murder going down as video game sales go up. Further more, there's been studies showing that a player's moral sensitivity actually increase when committing acts that they consider to be bad. The idea that blowing someone's car up in GTA who pissed you off on the road will lead to thinking blowing someone's car up in real life is the appropriate response is absurd, and should be considered offensive to the intellect to anyone that has any.

*Point out that violence in and among humans is absolutely positively nothing new, and gamers are not locked into playing only one game type. We regularly are playing games other that first person shooters. Consider Fifa 15's sales figures and then ask her if "kill your enemy" is likely to be the only message a gamer receives when playing games. (Also, that entire paragraph is without source, and something just sounding about right isn't always right.)

Number 4:

*This entire section is based entirely around opinion, misinformation, and downright character assassination. The picture he features is Trevor, from GTA 5, as I'm sure we're all aware. Let me say a little piece about Trevor, before I go off on the other points.

Trevor is a meth addict. Trevor is a murderer. Trevor is rude to people at random. Trevor is also adamantly against the use of slurs, and general disrespect against women. Trevor is a mix of traits, some of which we would consider "good" traits that would make anyone else a hero. Trevor is a well written character.

Now let me say something about the intent of GTA (the artist's mission, if you will). The entire premise of a game called Grand Theft Auto is committing crimes. GTA is a satirical look at our own society. This is a story told from the perspective of people who would be villains instead of protagonists in any other story.

So, are characters getting more "toxic" as she says? Well, yes, in GTA, they're becoming more real people. They're becoming better characters, which means when they're going to be bad people, they're going to inherently become worse and more hurtful. This is a good thing. Video games are art. Art does not have to make you feel good. Art will not always make you feel good.

I suggest asking your friend at this point too whether someone who would consider the refinement of an art form a bad thing *to be a trustworthy source for reporting on a that particular art form.

(Also, I really hope the author didn't just put Trevor up there because he looks "icky" because that would really make them a grade A asshole.)

As for his opinion on youtubers, he's basically accusing them of being toxic (in my opinion, calling someone's very existence "toxic" merely for having a presentation style you might not like is one of the more shitty things someone can do) and overall indicating that all gamers are all assholes. (Because stereotypes are ok when they're against people you don't like, I guess? As for assuming all of gaming culture is "mean" or whatever, she clearly is unaware that KiteTales exists. just because *she thinks something does not mean it's the absolute experience for everyone. This point just makes the author seem like an unaware asshole herself.)