March 7th, 2005
Video game violence.
A subject I try to skirt around. because let's face it, I'm a gamer. I willfully participate in these violent apparitions of modern technology, so I'm a little biased. (just a tad.)
But still, the constant instance by the media, lawyers, and victims parents that "video games made my child a killer!", really fucking pisses me off.
Know what made him a killer? your shitty-ass neglectful parenting.
Welcome to the concept of personal responsibility, where you don't go looking for someone to sue whenever something bad happens.
Ok, video game violence is over the top. I agree.
but this fucker should be blown up with a few good rocket launcher rounds. (irony fully intended.)
Do you think the interactivity of game violence makes it different than violence on television, which is passive?
Of course, as you actually grow neural pathways called dendrites that enable you to perform more easily the physical acts of violence.
uh, wow. way to COMPLETELY twist science to fit your agenda.
So Mr. Jack Thompson, are these "dendrites that enable you to perform more easily the physical acts of violence" a type of muscle, or are they sharp bony protrusions? Perhaps frickin lasers growing out of our heads?
Let's see what other pain is in there shall we?
The federal government found that in the school year 2003, there were 48 school killings. The year before that there were 16, and the year before that 17. Something is going on. I submit that the video game generation is coming of age.
Hello mr. scummy lawyer man, I'm the video game generation. As is the 30 year old friend of mine who grew up playing atari 2600's. Guess what! We're perfectly well adjusted people! In fact, we're far more well adjusted than most of the (excuse my stereotyping) public school jocks who are now having kids with their bleached blonde wives, and not paying attention to the games their kids are playing!
These kids are the tail end of the video game generation, and their parents were either on the crest of it, or just before the wave hit. And you know what? the kids are playing games WITH LABELS ON THEM SAYING "NOT FOR KIDS."
The video game industry knows it's audience. The majority of video game consumers are in the 18-35 male demographic, and as such the games that are made and are popular are games that appeal to that demographic. The big-name games aren't made for 8-14 year olds, and they're demarkated CLEARLY as games for a mature audience. Would you take a kid to a snuff film? no? then why buy him/her a copy of Manhunt? or Hitman?
*searches further in the article*
Oh, look at that! He may be a scummy lawyer, but at least he's willing to admit what the problem is.
Are parents paying attention to what their kids play?
DAMN STRAIGHT they're not. There's a rating system on these games for a reason.
Oh, here's a nice quote.
You see, the industry is selling these games to kids whose parents are reckless. How is that [Columbine victim parent]'s fault? We need to punish the industry and the parents who are putting innocent people in harm's way.
Oh, so close Jack.
The correct answer was: "the blame rests solely with the screwed up kids who flipped out and killed people, and their parents for not being more involved in their children's lives."
Thanks for playing, better luck next time.
In fact if you need to assign blame to someone sue-able, there's a far easier company to blame for columbine:
According to the manufacturer, Solvay, 4% of children and youth taking Luvox developed mania during short-term controlled clinical trials. Mania is a psychosis which can produce bizarre, grandiose, highly elaborated destructive plans, including mass murder.
Yes. One of the shooters was taking a psychiatric drug known to "produce manic psychoses, aggression, and other behavioral abnormalities."
Western children today are (by and large) raised by their televisions and video games. What you get out the other end of the process, is a child who has no sense of perspective, no respect for anyone/anything, and rolemodels of violence.
(wow that got long, please leave a comment with thoughts if you got through the whole thing.)
|Date:||March 7th, 2005 07:43 pm (UTC)|| |
Well, I think you're right, but I've always been on this side of the fence when the video game debate came up.
Although, I just have to say, as an ersatz biologist, that growing dendrites allows your brain to communicate better and is sponsored by learning new information and trying new things, not pressing a button repeatedly to blow up some space-age warthog with mines strapped to his back. It doesn't allow you to more "easily perform the physical acts of violence," you complete tool. Any well-balanced kid with attentive parents (and most without) can distinguish between fragging a pixellated image and pulling a trigger at someone's real live head.
yeah. he's an asshat. ^_^
Dude, I'm right there with you. I got my BA in Eletronic Media and am getting an MA in media and public affairs, and i have to argue with asshats who thing media are the cause of sex and violence in society.
If youre kid is plunking down 50 bucks and you dont even know what for?
yeah, parent of the year alright.
wow, very cool. that's the kind of education I'm interested in (theoretically anyway).
Where'd you go undergrad?
George Washington University. They did away with the major though. It was cool though, part broadcasting training, part theory.
bummer, that sounds very cool. ^_^
Well sure, violence begets violence. Beat a kid and s/he's more likely to resort to physical violence as well.
But the blame?
|Date:||March 7th, 2005 08:48 pm (UTC)|| |
I could never put that into words, but that did it.
If I rmemeber correctly, the study that Dave Grossman (may he burn in...fire) likes to quote is done about the effect of television violence on children. It showed that it can make kids more violent.
He naturally applies this to videogames without quoting other studies.
Interestingly enough, the television study concluded that it had such a bad effect because it "forces children to be passive observers".
I'm no TV scientist, but that sounds a whole lot like it doesn't apply.
I completely and fully agree - that red circle with the "18" in it isn't there for fun. You need to get more involved in your kids' lives. As a regular reader of NGC Magazine I've seen paper clippings of people claiming that video games caused their kids to become aggressive and abnormal - maybe it's the parents?
I'm sure normal. Whatever 'normal' actually is.
We have normality.
Anything you can't deal with is therefore your own problem.
Alright, I'm going to try to write out some of the points I always make when we talk about this, since you asked me to.
1. You always seem to end up making horrible assumptions about non-gamers when you rant about this issue, and I take offense. You're defending something you do because this guy's made a gross miscalculation in how he views gaming, and now you're making a similarly inelegant assumption about non-gamers (il-l33t?) based on this fellow. Bah humbug.
2. If I didn't know the kind of friendships you've built up gaming, and the (arguable) value of time-wasting in general, I would have absolutely no respect for the whole genre of video games you play (character-based, violent, multi-player, etc.). They do not adapt over time to you, or the world, they do not teach you much about inter-personal interaction (unless competition and quick-reflex killing count), and they do not even encourage accountability (by the creation of characters, and the ability to bend/break all rules). Other pasttimes encounter similar pitfalls, but have evolved over time to address that, video games are too new to have that kind of flexibility. Games are not yet (and because of changing video systems, probably won't ever be) adaptible, and historical -- they're this strange ephemeral medium that blossoms and rots, and they represent a synchronic view of time and human interaction -- so they have no precedence or contextuality.
3. There's two separate ideas in your rant: how to parent vs. how to use game ratings is tricky. Most media, video games included, are pervasive in a way that makes it exceedingly difficult to monitor what your child is exposed to. I, for example, saw many R rated movies that I'd been forbidden to see, because friends were allowed to rent them. Your argument starts to muddle up the efficacy of rating, and the efficacy of parental intervention, by assuming that they work together.
4. You assume a whole lot about "right" parenting in the first place, which places parents in the somewhat untenable position of both arbiting and mediating culture -- if they were able to do the first part, there'd be no need for the second, and if they didn't do the second part, they'd not be good parents -- as well as assuming that all children will respond to that parenting in the same way...
OK, more later perhaps, cause I'm not done yet.
They do not adapt over time to you, or the world, they do not teach you much about inter-personal interaction (unless competition and quick-reflex killing count), and they do not even encourage accountability (by the creation of characters, and the ability to bend/break all rules).
These are downsides?
they're this strange ephemeral medium that blossoms and rots, and they represent a synchronic view of time and human interaction -- so they have no precedence or contextuality.
I'm pretty sure I don't get your point here. They are basically books crossed with movies crossed with puzzles.
I, for example, saw many R rated movies that I'd been forbidden to see, because friends were allowed to rent them.
Ideally shouldn't your parents have checked with the parents of your friends to ensure that such media would not be accessible before allowing you over? That is, if it was important to them.
I don't even think these things need to be THAT age-restricted.
I mean....I wouldn't think that Doom 3 is appropriate for the little ones, as they might become scared of EVERYTHING (it's kinda creepy, you know)....but here's where I think the issue lies:
Fantasy != reality.
Videogames to me are cartoon violence, the same as Loony Tunes. No one is ever actually harmed. There's no one real involved most of the time (especially for me, I despise multiplayer).
I don't mind shooting everything that moves in Grand Theft Auto because...it's not real. You probably know that it's not real, so I don't think I need to explain it to you.
Videogames to me are cartoon violence
a point that I neglected to make, although it occured to me. The reason these games aren't for younger kids is that they can have trouble divorcing reality from fantasy.
Yeah, that's where the parenting comes in, eh?