I thought that when I saw the article title, but frankly the link title is a more accurate summary than the article title.

Some of the examples used in the article, such as the RDR2 controversy, are in the realm of that "deliberate statement to others who will observe this." So I'm not sure what you say about it being better than films or media is always true.

Anyway. Problem with the article doesn't end with what you've pointed out, the problem also is that it's really superficial. 1. There's no real attempt to differentiate between the two levels of the proposed "experiment" (as you point out: private acts and nonprivate acts). 2. No attempt explain why the private acts, even the grossest ones, like playing Battle Raper, are actually immoral. 3 No differentiation between indulgent violence and violence designed to be uncomfortable (this applies to films etc as well). 4. No real attempt to discover if all video game violence is wrong on some level, or if it's just extreme examples that are wrong and that some forms of video game violence are justified. And 5. If it's the latter, why is this the case, and if it's the former, why does the author play smash bros and fantasy RPGs?

All in all, basically reads like an article someone wrote on the toilet lmao. So par for the course for this sub.

Huh, I wonder if the word terrorist has ever had its definition changed before? Like if the original meaning was state repression, for example, but later changed because it suited political aims of the time?

Words are just politics. They don't really mean anything, I'm afraid. Literally 1984