>

Video games can be very stimulating and challenging.
None are lazy or unproductive, you can do them lazily or unproductively.
It's all about how you engage with it and what you get out of it. >

They are all sedentary activities, which are seen as lazy. You're right that they can be very productive, like watching educational programming or the fact that videogames can help with hand eye coordination, decision making, reaction time, and be social activities. 
But they all involve largely sitting g on your ass not moving, which is pretty lazy.
Unless you're playing wii sports or some augmented reality VR that has you up and moving, I guess, or you watch movies while on the treadmill or exercise bike. >

Not everything needs to be physically stimulating in order to be productive. Mental and cognitive activities are important too. This is how the dumb jock stereotype started!
Also, this is a bit ableist… >

As I said, it can be productive, but it's still lazy if all you do for entertainment is sit around watching TV, playing video games, or reading.
And fuck off with your ableist comment. Laziness doesn't include people who don't have the choice to be more active. >

Then why not clarify that (re:ableist)? >

Why would I need to? No one brought up ableism except you. >

Grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, proper use of literary devices, and more can be gathered from reading. It’s not unproductive to activate your imagination as you read either. >

Can also get that from most video games, especially rpg games that require a lot of reading. Not to mention subtitles for movies and tv shows. >

….but you’re READING in the game and READING with subtitles. >

That’s kind of my point, it’s still reading… >

I would argue that movies and video games (especially RPGs) tell and very clear story because the visuals are given to you. When you read, you have to imagine, interpret, and remember everything purely on your own. Now the level of visualization is different for everyone. People that have creative tendencies will usually be able to "see" more as they will fill in the gaps that the author does not provide. Analytical people will often pick up on subtle  details that other people miss altogether. Philosophical people will usually be able to understand the symbolism and metaphorical themes throughout the story. But no matter who you are or what your interpretation techniques are,  you're likely going to have the same understanding as everyone else when the visuals are provided for you, rather than having to imagine it on your own. This means that reading is generally harder because there is more that your brain has to process and visualize.
If reading was as easy as watching television or playing video games, then we would not have students that struggle to read. >

Now that’s an unpopular take >

Because it is wrong. Not in a moral sense but factual. 
Watching normal children shows has no positive side effects for the child and excessive watching does cause harm in the sense that it shortens the attention span of the kid. 
Reading has proven side benefits for lanuage skills (vocabulary, gramma, spelling) and for the attention span and ability to concentrate. >

One of the biggest predictors of a child's future success is words spoken with them per year. Reading with them is a good way to do this. >

If we start this argumentation a lot of hobbies would be "lazy" and "unproductive". But what's the problem with either of it? Not everything has to be the opposite to be enjoyable.

They are all essentially the same thing in my mind,

Sidenote: they are not. Kids are encouraged to read because well, they still learn reading and it helps learning. And second it also animates them to use their imagination, which isn't a bad thing. >

I suggest you take a look at Homo Ludens (Johan Huizinga).
You've just described one of the properties of games: a game is unproductive per se; you might get some knowledge or skill that can later be used in everyday life, but that's incidental.
Again, the activity of playing is itself not useful and technically only useful to itself, so according to this point of view, all the things that you've just described (i.e. videogames, movies and book) are not the same thing, but they fall in the same category and thus have the same properties (with respect to games).
Also note that, at least for book, this is only true if it's a leisure activity, if instead you're reading a book for university (for instance) then it's not really a game. This would be also true for other activities like videogames or movies, but I guess it's more common reading a book than playing videogames if you have to study. >

A lot of people always skip over the fact that it also depends on what kind of books are being read. >

The post refered to fiction books, so everyone talks about fiction. >

An advantage of reading over watching movies/video games is being able to imagine the scenes with my mind and engage in more active thought processes. Reading also helps improve your vocabulary, which is pretty productive imo. >

Playing video games is even more engaging than reading. Most games involve active problem solving and considerable hand eye coordination. Video games are continual information processing and reacting so it’s better than reading and watching tv imo. 
But I’m not a gamer. I’m a reader, I just think everyone should be able to enjoy their chosen hobbies without judgement. >

Well its not an opinion. Its like saying my opinion is that eating chips makes me run faster. Its simply wrong. Reading does train your patience, vocabulary, reading speed and it does decreased the risk of developing alzheimers and thats not an opinion but observerable facts. >

Absolutely not. It takes much more mental effort to read and there are many more opportunities to learn something (not that I care - I don't read anymore).
Not an opinion just flat out wrong.