Slashdot Mirror
Violence, Video Games And Donahue
nsda's deviant writes: "Salon is running an article written by Henry Jenkins, the director of MIT's new comparative media studies program. His article on Salon details blow-by-blow the shrewd tactics of cable TV's nightly debate programs like O'Reilly, Connie Chung, Cross Fire and of course the return of Donnahue. It also sheds lights on mass media's promotion of violence as ratings excitment and actively publicizing violence (ala Grand Theft Auto 3) for more ratings / controversy. The debate over video game violence has been a frequent topic on /. but this gives it quite a different twist. My favorite quote is 'those GTA3 clips seemed a whole lot more bloody when he (Donahue) was watching them before the show.'"
for attention
if you're honry
One facet of what he writes struck me as being very obvious, but I've never thought of it before. The activists against video game violence are always described as concerned mothers, whereas Dr. Jenkins, in spite of having raised a kid of his own, is merely referred to as a researcher. In his own words:
"On Donahue, activists are moms and intellectuals are presumed to be childless."
The nice thing about the internet is that you can say all the things you wished you would have said in the first place. Granted, he's reaching an entirely different audience than those who watched the Donahue in the first place, but he gave me something to think about when I see how people are labeled in the media.
I'm pretty sure "concerned mothers" are a greater threat to freedom than terrorists ever were...
I'm Peggy.
Anyone ever try to get news in the morning?
CNN has been taken over by morons doing all fluff. Fox is a pandering channel for Republicans that hide behind the fair and balanced crap (it's neither).
The best time to watch news is when you are out of the U.S. CNN International is a totally different creature than what you see here.
Shame we don't have the option here to get it in the states.
this is bullshit
the people who are supposed to become violent after playing videogames ALREADY have violent tendencies. how can a medium change someone so drastically, from your average peace loving hippy, into a gun totin' maniac?
its crazy
I like violence
Donahue makes me vomit
Why does my head hurt?
emotion over reason! woo!
--
fight global cooling
It really was.
An article bemoaning the absurdity of linking games to real-world violence is obviously preaching to the choir here on Slashdot, but it's worth reading for anybody with an interest in media (and media bias). It's unfortunate that Jenkins' ideas weren't given air, but worse is that they probably never will, as long as video games are "for kids."
I'm reminded of the troubles some comic book artists have been given over free speech, and the uphill battle of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. (Check out www.cbldf.org if you have a moment. They're fighting the good fight.)
Anyways. It's too bad such a well-written and insightful article ended up at Salon, rather than some Congressional hearing on the matter; it won't ever be absorbed by hyper-conservative parents and lawmakers who can somehow justify relinquishing responsibility for their children through legislation.
wow, violence sells? controversy sells? way to go salon for horridly covering a moot issue.
games have ratings that classify what age levels should play them. the goverment and parents groups got that done. GTA3 is rated "M". the parents that care won't let their 13 year old play the game.
o'reilly is a brilliant catalyst... he knows his topics very well, and the arguements for both sides. no matter what you say, he'll have the perfect rebuttle ready. donahue, go home. these shows are ONLY about controvercy and it sickens me that they still argue about these topics that were solved a long time ago.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
and here I was all excited that there was a game where I could conduct physical mayhem directed at Donahue
/cutscene. Game proceeds with you smashing studio.
[start cutscene in game intro]
You're on the Donahue show:
Donahue: "You do feel kind of aggressive after deathmatching, right kid?"
You: "...errr...no, videogames don't make me violent at all."
Donahue: "Come on. We hooked you up with electrodes to monitor your brainwaves (thanks NASA) and you're definitely in a violent mood"
You: "ok. I admit it. I'm a fountain of repressed rage."
"Talk Show Rage" could be the next smash hit videogame, like "Deer Hunter"...
They said "no cheap shots."
Was just another talk show.
Donahue is scum.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Donahue thinks games are making me violent...... damnit, I'm going to bean him to a bloody pulp and run him over with a truck for saying that.
...I mean this is bad. They like to talk about video games and violence specifically it allows them to show violence to get their ratings up all the while claiming how they don't depict violence.
It's a case of lets lie about what were doing, then blame it on someone else. granted the video games are violent - but who'd know about it if you'd have kept your mouth shut????
when is the media going to learn that they are the cause of most of the immoral nature of modern society that they themselves complain about?
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
I think it is the responsiblity of the parent to educate their children on what the difference is between
killing some person or character in a game, with all its blood and gore, and killing some person for real.
So when a child see's an advertisment for GTA and they see someone kill some guy and steal the ambulance
, they have some idea that it is make believe.
Of course, the childs age will make a difference in his/hers understanding!
Keep on shooting em up!!!!!
I learned from GTA 3 is that you can never outrun the cops. Not only do they have transporter technology to materialize wherever you are, but they have a clone army ready to take you out as well!
"Derp de derp."
How about a game where you try to have the highest rated talk show?
Pick the content. Hire hosts. Stage fights.
"Watch News at 11 for our report on video games...do they encourage violence? Then we'll show some footage of us bombing the hell out of afganistan familys!"
"But the smell-o-scope is brilliant I tell you! Just think of the astronomical odors you'll smell thanks to me!
What really gets me about this whole thing is that people are going to take the 'ultraviolence' that GTA3 offers and figure that it is this violence that made the game popular.
Forget the fact that there are over 70 missions, the ability to do whatever the hell you please at any time, including grab a taxi and play Crazy Taxi GTA3-style (which is really fun, GTA has way better physics than Crazy Taxi), or perhaps do the Emergency Vehicles missions..
Or maybe it is the massive parody that the entire game lays out, from a Mob Boss with Mommy issues, to a pair of troublemaking girls with a flair for S&M. Try listening to the soundtrack sometime.. (All the best pop music.. with lots of cool transition sounds!)
No, no, no, we can't accept that this game gets it all right, presenting the gamer with freedom, as well as an entertaining and engaging story that they want to play out. Instead, the media tells us that this game is popular because it is violent. Well, fuck, if that was the case, Postal would have been the best selling game of all time, or perhaps State of Emergency.
I dunno, that's just my rant on the media attention that GTA has attracted. These 'activists' should be sat down in front of the game, after the main character has already 'obtained' a taxi, and should be asked to play the game, doing fares for an hour or 2. Perhaps they will start playing conservatively, following roads and obeying traffic lights. Or, more likely, they'll realize it's a god dammed video game and they'll have a bit of fun, smash up a car or 2 and drive over the median. Only then, will they realize that it is the best game written since Half-Life. And all the while, I'll bet they won't think it's the same 'ultraviolent' game that they've been up in arms about.
It's obvious that video games play a minor part in the decadence of society. However, games like Grand Theft Auto III, Postal, and Doom should never make it into the hands of minors. Parents are in general a whole lot less effective than they were fifty years ago; while it certainly isn't fair to all of us that we must remove entirely from the public the forms of entertainment that might cause Junior to go haywire, it is probably the first sensible approach towards getting a handle on our run-amok society.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
These shows are all the same, just the faces are different. The whole point of them is to have people scream at each other for 15 minutes and then bring on the next guest.
Even if Jenkins thought Donahue was "different", he should have had his "attack dog" strategy ready to go as a backup.
MOD PARENT UP!
when i found the gun at age 5, i knew what it was for, and how to load and shoot it, from watching tv.
i wanted to kill him, and with enough luck, i might have, had a parent not found me and stopped me
no kidding
... they really aren't dumb. If you treat them like they are, how are they ever supposed to become so independent that violence in the media won't cause them to go on a Robocop rampage?
"Derp de derp."
For a liberal Donahue equivalent, see Rosie O'Donnel. Or Sally Jessie Raphael, or whatever her name was. Jerry Springer can hardly be thought of as pushing a conservative agenda; I assure you that conservatives despise him as much as liberals do. (I'm not wrong in assuming that liberals find his show despicable, am I? I hope not.)
Why did he feel the need to politicize this? I'm very conservative myself -- slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, I believe -- yet I play and enjoy video games and expect my kids will too. So where does that leave me?
The basic conflict here wasn't conservative vs. liberal, it was sensationalism vs. intellectualism. Only someone harboring the basest prejudices against conservatives could make that mistake, IMO.
And the brethren went away edified.
Best Part of Article was at the end when the guy recieved angry e-mails from angry soccer moms regarding his view on computer games:
"You are obviously not a mother trying to raise teenagers you stupid freaking moron idiot."
"I'd like to take that stupid X Box and crack that moron from MIT over the head with it."
Now is it just me or is it a bit odd that most of the bad angry e-mails he got came exactly from the exact same people that oppose violence in video games??
Or another thought... I love all the religious fanatics who want to ban and censor any material which in their eyes promotes violence.. Shouldn't they try banning religious institutions first since afterall it is the religion itself that drastically slowed human progress throughout the history.. Not to mention that religion has been in some way or another a major fact behind most of the wars in world history that claimed millions of lives... Shouldn't they be the last ones to comment on anything? Since if I was one of them I would be too ashamed to show myself in public...
Yes, but let's face it: none of these shows holds a candle to the true King of Implied Violence Entertainment: Jerry Springer. Thing is, if you tune into Springer, there's an expectation of (at least thinly veiled) violence. As far as I'm able to tell, Phil Donohue hasn't hired bouncers...yet.
But then again, there's always been a certain thrill to heated arguments. Anybody remember Point / Counterpoint on 60 Minutes? [Okay, we *all* remember the SNL parody...] So this is nothing new.
...-.-
...that this guy got nervous and sucked it up on Donahue?
I mean the author is EXTREMELY knowledgeable regarding violence and video games and I whole heartedly agree with all his ponts...BUT face it...he choked on TV and wrote an article on the evils of talkshows and the mass media.
I think he would be better off dedicating more of his time taking some debate classes.
"Donahue thinks games are making me violent...... damnit, I'm going to bean him to a bloody pulp and run him over with a truck for saying that. "
How many times did you hear that joke before you decided to share it with us?
"Derp de derp."
when you get your ass kicked on national television, you just write a nasty article for Salon where you can make personal attacks against the people who made you feel so bad.
The upside: they can't even respond, whereas you they gave you the opportunity on the show and you blew it.
The downside: You'll teach the media never to invite you to appear again.
discussed rationally on one of those daytime talkshows where the guests beat the crap out of each other.
What were those violent video games that hitler played or those violent movies that stalin watched? I cant see to remember...
I think the ending of the article really hits the nail on the head. The issue of video game violence is largely driven by emotion and supported by short sound-bite statements. Mr. Jenkins went into this arena planning to use reason and rational debate.
/. about religion. When anyone challenges the beliefs of the hard-core Christians, they point to the Bible as their supporting evidence and say "but the Bible says this".
None of the talk-show formats are going to allow reasonable discussions. It doesn't get people worked up. They have to have emotional topics to bring in the viewers. And you can't use rational arguments against people using emotional ones.
It reminds me of the debates that spring up on
If most people had a clue, shows like Frontline would blow crap like Donahue out of the water on ratings....
When the evil press
Puts violence in bad light
I want to shoot them
I desire to
Go splatter their intestines
With my RPG
That would teach them to
Accuse video games of
Causing violence
Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
from Dr. Jenkins can be found on joystick101.org. On one hand its a shame that his final article isn't available from another MIT branch off project, I understand the importance of reaching a venue that is a bit more well read. Personally, I think its a hard line to defend a game like Grand Theft Auto 3 in the face of a mother who lost a child. Everyone points out that the parents should be more involved, we don't need regulation, etc. But from my understanding thats just what her grassroots organization is about. If I was Henry, I'd have probably walked out on Donahue. It probably looks bad but if you've read the transcript it would be hard to get much worse.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Activists opposing violence in video games and those who support content ratings and age requirements on games often miss this fact as well.
It seems that the same people who see nothing wrong with GTA3 are often the same people who think that Joe Camel is evil advertising and promotes underage smoking.
Which is it, does media influence behaviour or not? It seems clear to me that those that promote GTA3 as relatively harmless fun and those that say Joe Camel is evil need to get together and figure out which is it!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Now, she had that level of control. Today, parents don't have that level of control with video games. Sure GTA3 isn't gonna turn a kid into a car rage murder or a pimp, but it still makes parents uneasy that their kid can waltz into Electronic Botique and but it without any parental consent.
Children are NOT full blown citizens and have limited rights, as they should. They lack privacy, they lack free travel, they lack free association. All this so that parents can do their job, whatever that may be. As such, I do think children should NOT be able to buy any violent video games. Period. Parents should buy it for them. Puts any "blame" in peoples minds where it belongs, in the parents lap. Not in the game, not at EB, not in the "media", but on the parent.
Of course given the nature of Slashdot, most will disagree in some way. That's okay, I've had Max Karma for a long time, what do I care.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Maybe if they gave everyone guns, things would have gotten solved!
*blam* *blam*blam*
"See bitch? I *told* you GTA3 wasn't too violent..."
hehe.
It should be mentioned that old westersn were alot more violent than current games..
Donahue has even interviewed actors from said westersn such as the DUKE..
We live in society that has made bigger schools, increeased more test giving and increased more classes for kids and we wonder why kids are getting violent..duh!
My I suggest that we asked the kids!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
"By the way, Moron, get a shave."
k .h enry.jpg
- co x.jpeg
Guess Mom was wrong about the hair.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9610/16/video.games/lin
Like I Emailed Him....
"You aren't any worse than Alan Cox"
http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson/als98/grumpy-alan
forget it.
Maybe you should start being a bit funnier?
If anyone remembers the old Donahue TV show, it was never about balanced discussion, but rather about pushing his agenda into a talk show format. He'd usually have 3-4 people for one side (the side he believed in) and 1 extremist on the other side for he and his guests to belittle and ridicule. Sure, he's owed a debt of gratitude for some of his ground-breaking shows, but on the whole, he was Geraldo with the chair-throwing.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
perl -e 'print chr hex for qw/49 20 64 72 75 6E 6B 20 61 20 67 6C 61 73 73 20 61 6E 64 20 61 20 68 61 6C 66 20 6F 66 20 77 68 69 73 6B 65 79 A 4C 61 73 74 20 6E 69 67 68 74 2C 20 74 68 65 6E 20 63 75 72 6C 65 64 20 75 70 20 74 6F 20 61 20 67 6F 6F 64 20 62 6F 6F 6B 2C 20 77 68 65 6E A 41 20 6D 61 6E 20 6B 6E 6F 63 6B 65 64 20 6F 6E 20 6D 79 20 64 6F 6F 72 2C 20 61 6E 64 20 61 73 6B 65 64 20 6D 65 20 69 66 A 48 65 20 63 6F 75 6C 64 20 63 6F 6D 65 20 69 6E 2E 20 49 20 77 61 73 20 62 6F 72 65 64 2C 20 73 6F 20 73 61 69 64 20 79 65 73 2E A 48 65 20 70 72 6F 6D 70 74 6C 79 20 73 74 6F 6C 65 20 6D 79 20 62 6F 6F 6B 20 61 6E 64 20 6C 65 66 74 2C 20 77 69 74 68 6F 75 74 A 53 61 79 69 6E 67 20 61 20 77 6F 72 64 2E 20 49 2C 20 74 6F 6F 2C 20 77 61 73 20 6C 65 66 74 20 77 6F 72 64 6C 65 73 73 2E A 54 68 65 20 6C 69 62 72 61 72 69 61 6E 20 77 69 6C 6C 20 62 65 20 6D 61 64 20 61 74 20 6D 65 2E A A/'
./crap <file - and choose extrans when posting!
./crap <file - and choose extrans when posting!\n\n");fflush(stdout);system("cat crapgen");}
This post was brought to you by the self-perpetuating hexadecimal crapflooder. To generate similar crapfloods, execute the script below. To run, type
#!/bin/sh
cat >crap.c <<EOF
#include <stdio.h>
int main(){int c;printf("perl -e \'print chr hex for qw/");while((c=fgetc(stdin))!=EOF)printf("%X ",c);printf("A/\'\n\n\n");printf("This post was brought to you by the self-perpetuating hexadecimal crapflooder. To compile the crapflood generator, execute the script below. To run, type
EOF
gcc crap.c -o crap
I read the title "Violence, Video Games And Donahue" and thought, "Finally! A video game where I can kick Donahues ass! Cool!"?
I can't be the only one...
Sen. Danforth: "There is nothing on the face of the album which would
notify you if the record has pornographics material or
material glorifying violence?"
Tipper Gore: "No, there is nothing that would suggest that to me."
Frank Zappa: "I would say that a buzz saw blade between the guy's legs on
the album cover is good indication that it's not for little
Johnny."
-- The Senate Commerce Committee hearing on rock
lyrics, from The Village Voice, 6 Oct 1985
Except for a few rare exceptions, politicians and newspersons never provide unbiased information to the public at large. Finding easy answers is too profitable for them to ever stop.
Some friends of mine accidentally discovered that a large amount of the incidental soundtrack in GTA3 comes from the movie "Scarface." I encourage everyone to rent "Scarface" to enjoy this interesting parallel - and for its artistic merits of course.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Not only would I bet the children that sit at home and play violent video games do not become violent offenders later in life, but I'd also bet that on average they have higher grades, are better adjusted and do better in life than those who do not play violent games.
Why? Well I think it has nothing to do with the games and everything to do with the fact their parents can afford the game systems and/or PCs, while the children that don't play games don't have the game systems and/or PC because their parents can not afford it and that living in poverty leads the children to a life of crime.
What would REALLY be interesting is a study of children that play violent games vs children that don't in families with a SIMILAR INCOME. I still think the children that play games would do better in grades and such, but whether they'd be more likely to commit violent crimes would be interesting....
In fact, I think we should go over to Donahue right now and take a Rocket Launcher to his show and blow him up.
No.... sorry... Ummmm.... shoot him down with an Uzi.
No.... wait... Use my Sniper Rifle on him.
Argh... He be sellin' spank to my women! Me and Luigi will go take a bat to his face!
God damnit! No.... No... Must resist...
Okay... How about me and Donahue just sit down and talk it out...
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Bogus point.
Concerned mothers are identified as "concerned mothers" because that clearly defines their stake in the issue. Jenkins, on the other hand, uses his credentials as a researcher to argue his point of view. That makes him a "researcher" (and an extremely biased one at that). I don't see any presumption of childlessness here. If Jenkins wants to argue on behalf of intelligent parents, he must drop the pretense of being a professional researcher. As it is, his position is already compromised by the fact that he has engaged in "sponsored research." This is a rhetorical fact: You have to talk like who you claim to be. And while academics of Jenkins's ilk may bemoan the polemical nature of popular discourses and long for more nuanced intellectual exchanges, from the outside it just looks like some ivory tower dweeb got a whupping in a public debate. Instead of pointing fingers at Circus Media, a wiser man would inquire into the privileged status of his views, and the political implications of his isolation. How does somebody get through life thinking that everybody's on his side, or would be if only people would listen to him?
That's the problem. The funnier you are, the fewer in number people are that will get the joke.
If you understood humor, you would have a deeper understanding of my sig.
"Derp de derp."
Aren't liberals supposed to be for free-speech and against censorship?
/--begin rant
/--end rant
I have never believed Columbine happened because some asswipes were playing Quake or Doom. Nobody ever killed themselves by listening to Judas Priest. Get real! These kids were messed up to begin with. Millions of people play these games, listen to KMFDM, and watch voilent movies without feeling the need to go on a shooting spree.
People are looking for a scapegoat for their own poor parenting. If they actually paid attention to what their kids listened to, or played, they might actually have some kind of impact in their kid's life.
Still, fighting for a person's civil liberties seems like something a liberal would do. I'll leave it to the conservatives to take them away (thanks, PATRIOT act and AG Ashcroft).
On the other hand, Tipper Gore was head of the PMRC and Joe lieberman whined that sexy and violent movies were being targeted at kids.
what about the anti-abortion fanatics that blow up abortion clinics to "save lives" by taking other lives?
Someone getting upset that a moron is a moron and wanting to do violence to that moron has nothing to do with them playing games or not, it's the fact that they don't like the other person's opinion.
here, at joystick 101, including text from an example "hate-email" he received after the show.
.. like an article about media bias would be better applied to one of the many shows where people like Mr. MIT -aren't- invited on to share their opinions. These shows are taken much more seriously than talk shows are and can certainly be much more biased, on this subject as well as many others.
Sure, there are valuable things to be said about video game violence and about media bias. But this is a political debate show -- it's obvious to anyone who's ever watched TV that just because you lose the debate doesn't mean you're wrong. This guy is simply a sore loser who's 'striking back' at Donahue and his producers in an extremely unfair way. At least they invited him on their show to share his opinions. Did he ask them for a comment for the article? Didn't think so.
I think Jenkins' stand on video games makes sense. What I don't understand is how he finds his treatment on the Donahue show at all suprising. I mean, you would think that someone who is a highly paid media professor at MIT would be familiar with even the most basic facets of contemporary media culture: The majority of television shows emphasize surface over depth.
All television shows take thier cue from the medium's most popular form: professional wresting. Jenkins had expected a boxing match where two opponents actually fight. Instead he entered a ring where the game was already decided and all fighting was emotionally exagerated to maximize entertainment value. Roland Barthes wrote about this years ago. Jenkins really should have known better.
Well, they pulled the plug on Bill Maher (Politically Incorrect). A decent talk show imho, both subjective and objective (maybe more subjective than objective), but nevertheless you get the points of view of many different type of people. Although, they never resolve anything or even come close, it still an entertaining discussion of current issues (in a funny kind of way)...
From the article:
Banning games doesn't put a stop to domestic violence, doesn't ensure that mentally unstable kids get the help they need, doesn't stop bullying in the hallways, and doesn't deal with the economic inequalities and racial tensions that are the real source of violence in American culture.
How, after reading this, can I buy anything this guy has to say? He seems to make a valid argument that video games don't cause kids to kill each other (although he doesn't really deal with the issue of aggressive behavior in general, and he doesn't really deal specifically with any of the studies he is taling about), but then he goes on to make this kind of generalization.
I could definately buy the notion that racial tensions are one of the reasons for violence in our country. However, the "economic inequalities" argument is really lacking. Some of the poorest areas in the country are in rural areas where violent crime is at its lowest. This sounds like typical liberal claptrap that tries to justify wealth redistribution.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
We have a little thing in this country, which is summed up nicely as "...the pursuit of happiness."
Einstein pursued physics because it appealed to him, he enjoyed it, and he had the intellect to do so. Carmack pursues the development of video games for essentially the same reason.
I'd wager that "for the good of humanity" was a ways down on both their lists, if it made the list at all. Now if it turned out that it happened to make the world a better place, then so much the better.
In fact, you could make a pretty good case that Einstein made the world a much, much worse place and has inflicted more evil than Carmack could ever hope to. Or are you and Mr. Feinbaum not aware of the whole Einstein-atomic bomb connection? Maybe the world really would be a better place if ol' Al had stuck to pinball machines.
But that's crap, just like blaming GTA3 for Columbine is crap. Freedom is a dangerous and terrifying pursuit, but we prize it above all else in this country. We certainly prefer it to morality police and socialist fanaticism. I can see why you posted as AC because this is clearly not a well-thought-out opinion.
Listen carefully: people do not do wicked things because of Satan, witches, Communists, Dungeons&Dragons, video games or Harry Potter. They do them because it is their nature, and to blame anything else is misguided and foolish.
I'll tell you what the 'effect' is! It's pissing me off!
I dont know who Stanley Feinbaum is, but this is nothing but a bunch of misinformation, baseless opinion, and propaganda.
Sorry, moronic replies like this make me laugh...it's quite obvious that Kool Aid causes REAL violence so let's ban it...after all, at least 90 percent of American children drink the stuff so there must be some corelation, right? Let's be perfectly clear here, folks, humans are both a violent and social species, theres simply no way at this point to extract the "violent" aspects from our popular culture, but that's no excuse to blame them for a lack of social condidtioning in a few indivuals. Hands up here all the fine folks who have played Quake. Now, all the mass murderers and serial killers put your hands in the air. Are we quite clear now? BTW has anyone ever asked where the parents were when those kids at Columbine were when they were constructing their arsenal? Next thing ya know they'll be outlawing Linux cause it cause's acne!!!!!
Several things disturb me about Conservative rhetoric, but most notably:
It would be truly refreshing to see a debate between a Conservative who can restrain these tendencies and a well-versed liberal thinker like Noam Chomsky.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Ah, yes, attend mass = moral person. So, all the moral atheists are nonexistent, and all of the religion-generated wars and crusades are really 'moral'.
Nonetheless, this argument has nothing to do with the subject - you're way off topic. I had a homecooked meal every night growing up, after a hard day of work and schooling, and then played video games. The two are NOT mutually exclusive.
"... today they are immersed in a world of vice (the pornography of violence that is video gaming or prime-time television, nightclubs for kids, broken homes or homes that were never whole to begin with, complete lack of spirituality)."
As opposed to rampant disease in past (even recent) human history, wars/accidents in which one parent would die young, child labor (including child prostitution, in 'civilized' societies), etc.
Again, this argument has no basis in reality, nothing to back it up other than speculation and anecdote, and is quite easily shown to be flawed.
Finally, prove our society is more run-amok than society was in past years... i.e. during the rampant sex of the 70's, rampant drug use of the 60's, war of the 40's, depression of the 30's, organized crime of the 20's, etc.
I disagree with your premise - that society is worse off now than it was in the past... and thus I disagree with your conclusion - that video games and television and the lack of good god-fearin' Christians is what led to our current state.
-T
In my experience, when you start getting into a debate about video game violence you have to limit yourself to three topics and just keep repeating those topics over and over:
1. Juvenile violence is at a 30-year low.
2. People serving time for violent crime consume less media than average. Also, the surgeon general's report stated home life and mental stability are the risk factors, not media exposure.
3. Finally, videogames are rated and the violent ones are clearly labeled "M-for-Mature, 17+" and the factors that lead to that rating are also clearly labeled. Mature rated games account for less than 10% of videogame sales.
All of these points were raised in the Salon article. Stay on these three topics and drill them into the other persons head. Try not to become disoriented and/or gag by their arguments of "think of the children" and "but violence makes baby jesus cry".
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
"I want to show you a picture. This is 13-year-old Noah. While reenacting the video game Mortal Kombat, he was stabbed to death by his friend."
Reenacting the game Mortal Kombat? How intellectually challenged must one be to accept such an excuse? Seriously, folks, just think about what this forbodes...
A minor (teenager, I presume) stabs a thirteen year old often enough, and with enough force, to kill him. There is No Way in Hell (tm) the stabber was not clued in to what he was doing. Unless the victim was taken completely by surprise and killed with the first blow, no one on Earth could fail to correctly interpret the screaming, fighting, and maybe even begging as an act.
The mere fact that anyone, much less 'soccer moms' in middle class burbs, would believe the Mortal Kombat crap should tell you something about the state of our society. It's on its way to Hell, and the handbasket is long gone.
>I can't help but think to myself, that If I am thinking this, what about the disturbingly large portion of population thats not quite right in the head.
Um should someone with violent inclinations and certain impressionablities be the one to decide what causes certain effects or someone with comprehensive as well as conclusive evidence?
Did this article make you feel violent? Do you want to steal a car now?
Me, I wanna kill my TV!
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
If ever in the future of human society a culture will develop in which intelligence is a requirement for holding office and/or voting. Is it possible for intelligent leaders to take control, keep control, and base policy decisions on research when possible rather than emotion? Obviously research isn't always available to help in a decision, but when laws get passed based on public emotion, something is wrong with The System. Maybe people need to Qualify in order to vote. I'm not advocating a Comstock but perhaps some simple test of logic or reason that gives you access to the voting booth. :)
The Mt. Dew must've come from Canada today.
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
Third page of the article, first e-mail quote at the end. It seems at least one viewer is implying a lack of parental experience on the part of the researcher.
Fragfest gets me high
My game is not yet over
Time to kill my boss
Occasionally I still play a round of AOEII or fire up a console and play some nostalgia games (Blaster Master anyone?), but I haven't bought, or played, a new PC game in a couple years. I'm just not excited about games like I used to be. The only game I'm still a 'fan' of is Zelda, becuase the game play is always cutting edge. Maybe that's it, I'm sick of strategy and 1st person shooter games. Adventure dammit, where's Lara when you need her?
I got more excited about the PS2 dev kit than any game for it (I actually have a PS2 and no games for it). I like violent games (GTA3 was fun...for like an hour), but they aren't even interesting anymore. They all seem to be around the same, blow something up, watch blood fly. We need a "Capture & Torture - Taliban Edition" game. At least that's original, and the game play would have to be.
Getting old sucks, soon I'll be 30. Seems like only beer and boobies get me excited these days. I miss the thrill of youth and discovery, when intellectual pursuit wasn't interfering with nap time.
The salon.com article is definetely more polished, but he goes into a bit more detail about the emails (it's scary how the mom writing the article can't take responsibility with her son for her son's situition, and instead just points her fingers wildly). He goes over the same points. Perhaps the salon article is a heavily revised version of this one, but it's interesting anyway. The older article
How come nobody ever worries about the games Hitler played?
Wow! A viewer is implying that? So what? Isn't it more relevant to this thread to find out what the story is implying, not what some viewer implies in a comment?
If you meant that the viewer is inferring that, well again, so what? They are likely to infer anything given the sparseness of the original story.
I wonder if your Patented Slashdot-Sarcasm-Meter is broken. What? You don't have one? Mine was going off the scale on the post you replied to.
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
If you choose to use force, you are going to attract the police. The more force, the more cops. Pretty soon, you're going down.
That's the key. While all games aren't nearly as encompassing, I'm focusing on GTA3 here because that's what THEY seem to be focusing on.
I play GTA3 (and has become one of my all-time favorites) not because of the content (and certainly not because I have the option to "do" prostitutes), but because the technology and immersiveness are awesome. The violence and other aspects that depict an anti-social orientation are but merely part of a story. If anything, they demonstrate how scummed out (and snuffed out) one's life can get when they make stupid choices.
The previous post could be rewritten as the following, don't you think?
;)
"Several things disturb me about Liberal rhetoric, but most notably:
* The use of ridicule and ad-hominem attacks to discredit valid ideas. i.e., Calling someone a "conservative" as an implicit insult.
* The assertion of certain lies as universally-known truths. i.e., That the media has a conservative bias. That "conservative" ideas dominate state policies.
It would be truly refreshing to see a debate between a liberal who can restrain these tendencies and a well-versed conservative thinker."
Now, personally, I'd be more interested in seeing discussions where both sides avoid such rhetorical techniques to cloud issues, discredit their opponents, and avoid the facts
Are there any real discussion shows left, outside of PBS or NPR.
I highly recommend The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Seriously.
Something I was taught early on by my best teacher ever, was that it doesn't matter who is making the argument, as long as it is sound. I don't care if it's usama, bush, the kid next door, a researcher, or a "concerned mother", I _try_ to listen to what they're saying, and try to expand on their ideas and/or think up counterpoints. That being said, no one is perfect, and often when I'm listening to something my own biases will creep in (or dominate), although often when I think of something later on, in isolation, I will be less biased and honestly evaluate what was said to the best of my ability. (Which is why it's best not to assume an argument is over after a single debate, but revisit it many times and hear from many people before making any important conclusion)
About the circus media, I'd say that although from time to time some insight into an issue is shown on TV and some idea I haven't discovered is brought to light, much of the time what is being said can be obvious, misleading, alarmist, ridiculously biased, and so on. I've never seen a news anchor or anyone on TV showing any actual thought, with the possible exception of Bill Maher and some of his guests on politically incorrect, which was of course not perfect, but sometimes brought out interesting points on issues that one would rarely see on TV normally. I don't mean to say that TV news has no value, it does, it's just that whenever any story requires analysis (or doesn't but it is given) it seems like good interesting points rarely come up. The people who are giving their opinions are so often simply assume they are correct, and people almost never admit they are wrong, or even could be wrong. Which reminds me of Dennis Miller of course, who always mentions "that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." Often (always?) it seemed like a very sarcastic statement, but the idea that it is shameful to be mistaken, and then admit you're wrong, is one that has always really bothered me.
Anyway to conclude, from my point of view, the best arguments I've ever had weren't so much arguments as discussions where neither "side" assumed they were right and argued from that point of view but brought out as many important ideas as possible, to try and acheive the best understand of an issue as possible. There is of course more to it than that and some of what I've said needs clarification, but it's an idea.
"Save me jebus!" - Homer Simpson (btw, I'm probably talkin out of me arse)
Perhaps it's time that the media turned the eye over to itself for a few minutes and asked "what are we doing to prevent violence from appearing on our streets?" All too often, the media brings news of carnage and destruction into the homes of people worldwide. It (at least, what I can see in the American media) hops from catastrophe to catastrophe and scandal to scandal, paying no heed to interesting and useful developments in the rest of the world. Coincidentally, that's why I enjoy reading Slashdot. Less news about death and carnage. Let's have a look at CNN.
CNN has a bit of a record for fixating upon single bits of news, and for broadcasting uncensored and disturbing material. Have a look at the CNN website, and what will you see? A page that's packed with news about Al-Queda, post-9-11 articles, and some tiny little links to seemingly unimportant kidnappings. In other news, last night, CNN aired footage of a dog being gassed to death, and then described the entire process in gory detail. You say that video games are a source of gruesome and grizzly stimuli? You can read the CNN article about the death of a dog right here.
Also of worthy mention, is the fact that you can pay to download footage of this very dog being killed by subscribing to CNN's NewsPass. (look for the "Chemical Tests" link on the right-hand side) Keep in mind that this footage was actually put on air last night, for the general populace to see.
Thinking back about incidents where CNN has aired rather disturbing material, think back to 9/11. Indeed, it was truly a frightening event, but footage of people jumping out of buildings and splattering on the pavement seems somewhat unnecessary upon reflection. I can't really name a game, or a television show that has portrayed anything that disturbing.
Well, I suppose that in the end, this isn't violence. It's news. And people have a right to know what's going on in the real world...even if the real world is way more violent, destructive, and disgusting than the fantasy worlds of video games.
BTW: For some significantly broader news, go visit the BBC News Website. It's about violence happening outside of the United States and Afghanistan.
My apologies if I've offended anyone with this post.
Barthe's essay on wrestling (in Mythologies) is a great read, but the connection to talk (shows) requires an acceptance of his semiology--if not explicitly then provisionally or merely for the sake of metaphor, don't you think?
Looking at Jenkins' cv, I agree he should've known what he was in for.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Uh moron, exactly how do the "concerned mothers" pass themselves off as genuine researchers? How exactly is their opinion more valid? If a mother actually had a college degree WTF is she doing on a talk show?
For all we know, none of them have kids either; they provided just as much "evidence" as Jenkins did. And for the ones that do have kids, 80% of them are buying these games for their kids. And the ones that aren't, and their kids have them anyway, aren't doing their fucking job as parents.
Mr. Jenkins is.
And your whole statement about media circus and informed debate is actually the point of the article...did you even read the fucking thing? The "Childish Intellectuals" have actually recognized that this type of discourse is horseshit and doesn't accomplish anything useful. You and Phil Donahue haven't realized this yet. It's just a "whupping in a public debate".
Like the Salem witch trials.
A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's an erection for?
Since the piece is talking about the author's experience on the Donohue show, the headline attributing the same tactics to other shows "assumes facts not in evidence," as a lawyer would say.
I agree with Henry Jenkins about Donahue trying to create controversy rather than two intelligent sides to an issue.
Right now he has a Christian discussing how you wont get into heaven unless you accept Jesus with a Rabbi.
It all depends on how you define "funnier".
Does 3000 chortles equal 10 ROFLs?
The 3000 chortles will net you more karma, but you may be aiming for the ROFLs.
My sig is basically the same as yours (btw, it's "I'm").
As my father lik@(munch munch)...
Jenkins is upset because this particular show sterotyped him. But as he describes how badly he answered his critics, he does exactly the same to them - he stereotypes them.
Really, the questions he was asked are exactly the kinds of questions that concerned parents are asking, and he needs to be able to answer them in the debate - not afterwards in his own article which does not allow both sides to present their cases.
The current Liberals (Democrats) are no better or worse than the current Conservatives (Repulicans), that is they both suck equally hard.
Their solution to everything is to take it away, be it Free Speech, free assembly, privacy, guns, drugs, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It's not one side that is bad and the other side that is not so bad, or vice versa. Both sides here are are at fault. It's a case of short sighted, autocratic greed by those in power over everything: the People, the Constitution, and historical precedent.
We need to stop letting those bastards play us off against each other Democrat vs Repulican style. Instead we need to fight the enfranchised elite using their power to keep us down.
It would be a huge improvement if the Greeens and Libertarians replaced all the Democrats and Repulicans respectively. Imagine a smaller, less powerful government (Libertarian) that put the needs of the people ahead of the whims of the corporations (Green). It beats the hell out of the Orwellian dystopia we are currently suffering in.
I agree that a very important lesson for everyone (not just children) to learn is restraint, but I don't believe that morality should be taught.
I don't really like the idea that children need to be taught good from bad. My belief is that a person's ability to discern between good and bad is mostly innate, with a bit gained from personal emotional experience, perhaps. Children may do bad things, but that's only because they don't fully realize the consequences of their actions. Stories that illustrate consequences, such as "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" seem not only more effective than giving children ultimatums backed with threats of punishment, but also more moral. Children are people, too. Give them freedom of choice growing up and they will be more responsible later, I believe.
-------
Incite and flee.
HAND
XML causes global warming.
I agree with the AC. Understanding right from wrong is trivial. Assuming you know what right and wrong are, there's nothing to teach.
You mean the "obviously not a mother" comment? Well, uh, chalk it up to sexism or whatever but I kind of agree with that.
Anyway, one poster here is arguing that is has no bearing on Jenkins' complaint about the framing of the debate, and our argument of that point in this thread. I think it may be germaine, however-- particularily with respect to gender politics and in light of Donahue's demographics. To be consistent with my previous argument, I would insist that if Jenkins wants to act the concerned parent, he really needs to claim that position strongly and talk about his children. That would certainly keep attentive viewers from making unwarranted inferrences about his parental status. In summary, Jenkins had an opportunity to speak in a public forum and he rather flubbed it. He seems quick to blame the producers of the show and the media at large, but never questions the political implications of the position he's staked out for himself.
Bad Intellectual! Bad! Bad!
I am working on a small game myself at the moment(just a freeware title for DOS, bad graphics, primitive code, weak music, but I take great pride in it, because it is my work, my piece of art, my experience to share with the world). Whenever I hear of some ignorant individual spouting off about the supposed wrath of violent video games, it makes me angry. Many times, I notice that the aforementioned "activists", are nothing more than leeches, leeching media exposure off of what should be a somber and saddening occasion such as Colombine, using a tragedy to further their political agenda in a way which should rightly cause horror and disgust in right minded people(I hate using the term, but really -- to use a tragedy like that to further your own political agenda is disgusting). Unfortunately, these people are also very often ignorant of the facts, so I am helpless against their torrent of misinformation. Video games are not the only thing which attract such leeches. After colombine, almost every aspect of popular culture which was found to have a connection to the two boys was exploited; the Matrix, violent music, the list is endless. As a game producer, I feel that the public has no concievable, legitimate right to tell me what I can and can't put in my games; be it philosophy, story, gore, violence, or mature subject matter. Those who believe it's somehow my responsibility to watch their children(while depriving other children with more mature parents of a mature, possibly enlightening experience) should grow up a bit and allow themselves to be parents. Some will say "but what if my child gets a violent game without me looking?", and to this I reply that if you make a rule that says that a child may not play or rent a violent video game, and that child breaks that rule, punish the child, not the industry! If you don't discipline your children yourself, you will find that violent computer games are the least of your worries when he/she reaches their teenage years.
It's been a long time.
You know, you're probably right. No doubt it was "intended" as sarcasm, but it fails miserably. Merely repeating what so many millions of ignorant people are willing to believe and state themselves doesn't, in and of itself, make any kind of statement. Nor does it modify the original content of the statement. Unforetunatly, there are lot of people who would and will make exactly that kind of statement, and mean it wholeheartedly. Humour is a fine line, and if that statement was intended as such, it didn't even cross it!
"But the producers were so, so reassuring. They wanted to have an intelligent discussion, to avoid sensationalism, to give me a chance to make my arguments."
And the author believed that shit? C'mon man, what were you thinking? (Although in fairness he was pretty nice to Ralph Nader on the Enron show.)
Having worked in the entertainment industry for some time I'd sooner belive the Power Puff Girls are coming to dinner.
In Hollywood 'trust me' is just another way to say 'trust me, I'm going to fuck you the first chance I get because it might further my career a tiny little bit'.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
Oh look here. Yet another example of America having all the proof it needs to actually inact a change in how things are done, and they ignore it.
Little Johny's Mom thinks its that evil GTA3 game or Doom or something stupid like that, when in actuallity its more likely its Little John's Dad telling him to stand up for himself in school and that violence is the only answer.
Donnahue is trash BTW. I respect the director if MIT infanitly for his attempt to voice his proof about video games however.
From the article:
When I got home in the wee hours of the morning, I found that I had already started to receive hateful e-mails from the "Donahue" dittoheads.
"You are obviously not a mother trying to raise teenagers you stupid freaking moron idiot."
"I'd like to take that stupid X Box and crack that moron from MIT over the head with it."
"By the way, Moron, get a shave."
It's not video games that make the occasional, random kid violent... it's having parents with hypocritical attitudes like that that make kids violent. Can anyone be that illogical and clueless? **Boggle**
Violent video games are bad, but threatening a real person in real life (ok, via email) is OK?
Just when I thought I had the tiniest shred of hope for humanity... I am sad now.
sig fault
Sorry Mr. Data, I can't. I'm not Joe Piscapo.
"Derp de derp."
What good does it do to keep violent games out of the hands of minors, but let adults have them? Kids learn how to behave by watching older people. I've never understood why parents feel that it's OK to immerse themselves in all kinds of corruptive situations (violent games, R movies, porn, dirty jokes, sleazy clubs, bars) and pretend that it's not going to affect their beliefs, attitudes, and actions. Garbage in, garbage out. You think you can protect yourself, but you can't very much. You will be changed no matter how vigilant you are to fend off unwanted influences.
It's a conflict of effort to try to keep children pure but let adults run wild. The two realms cannot be compartmentalized. IMHO, if there's anything that would be inappropriate for a child, it's probably also inappropriate for an adult. If we're going to fight violence in society, we need to realize that we're all in this together! If something is too violent for kids, then adults, in most cases, should not have need or want of it either. If the adults are really serious - if they truly care - about blunting the effects of violence, they should be willing to sacrifice some entertainment and pleasure for themselves for the sake of the children and society. This goes for consumers of entertainment, producers of entertainment, and promoters of entertainment. Any effort to wipe out violent influences (but not all violent content; context and tone are everything - compare Schindler's List to GTA3) must be a concerted effort.
Most of you don't think there's enough evidence of the influence of video games. Advertisers certainly have full confidence that what appears on the screen powerfully both affects and effects (produces) behavior. It's ironic that the video game-producing companies argue that their games don't influence behavior, but then turn around and spend lots of money on advertising which they obviously believe does influence behavior. Follow the money - that's what they really know to be true.
Many corporations line up every year to pay up to $2,200,000 for 30 seconds of screen time during the Super Bowl. Maybe they have some research you don't know about? C'mon! We need evidence that media influences behavior like we need evidence that gravity influences behavior. Remember this story about the fast and furious influence of TV in Bhutan (the last place on earth to legalize TV)? The fact that TV (a passive medium) profoundly influences people is well established. Doesn't it make sense that an active medium such as video games would also have a powerful influence (albeit different in some ways)?
Furthermore, games don't last for a single 30 seconds, but hours and hours, days, months, repeated endlessly, being drummed into your mind. And YOU get to play the action in a first person situation, thereby internalizing its content much more than an advertisement. But you think you're so strong that you're not influenced? Yeah, right.
It troubles me that people have an appetite for violent content in the first place. Is amusement more important than character? Ha, stupid question to ask on Slashdot. I know I'm different.It's ironic that people are screaming for peace between nations, but they don't want peace in their own homes.
I would've loved to call in to conversate with Donahue about this issue. I'm sure he would've loved to hear how I'm a fifteen year old male who has been playing video games (violent or not) for twelve or so years now. I've played every game in the Mortal Kombat series (including the subpar "Mythologies" sidestory), and I've followed the Grand Theft Auto series since its inception. In fact, I eagerly anticipated the release of Grand Theft Auto 3 so I could finally blow a cop away in three-dimensions. So why is it that I've yet to stab, shoot, or otherwise maim someone? Before I was even allowed to LOOK at Mortal Kombat in the arcade, my dad made sure that I was aware of the difference between video games and reality. I wonder if these so-called parents did the same?
"Programming is like sex - one mistake and you'll have to support it for the rest of your life."
If they wanted some shock footage, why didn't they use clips from State of Emergency instead?!
"Tabemono, tabemono, arimasu ka? Nai desu ka? Arimasu ka?" - Ed
This doesn't sound surprising in the least. Talk shows have never been about arguments but about arguing. The key is to slam the other person into submission... like in a rap battle.
Example: His opponent first mentions she is a concerned mother right? And he is a father too? His answer should have been "Listen, if any parent was so stupid as to by a game called Grand Theft Auto for their children without even giving a second thought to the age 17 and up warning we should probably be more concerned that so many retards are breeding in our fine country."
Other examples I would have used: "Outlawing video games is like making war illegal 'cause some children might see the highlights on this fine station!!!"
"Hmmm, it seems you let the computer do a lot of the parenting for you... maybe we should call children's services."
Talk shows are about personal attacks. And although mildly interesting (like a bar fight) it really doesn't hold your interest. Why do you think they change topics every 5 minutes?
If you want real thought provoking discussions... watch PBS. Frontline is the best.
What is music when you despise all sound?
Must've been a video taken from the PS2 version; otherwise the audience would've been wondering why they were watching a slideshow of assorted cars, stick-figure pedestrians, and blocky buildings.
My 1800+/512mb/GF4-4400 combo evidently isn't enough to tame this beast.
The main reason for all of this concern about the violence of children is this:
Children spend more time at home, indoors than they ever had.
What is the primary effect of this? Put much closer to parental supervision than they ever had.
And the effect of this? Parents now get to see how violent children are.
I forget the study but this ends up being cyclic. Parents are then concerned about who "taught" their child this. TV supplies the answer: the world is now more "violent" (which, in truth, it probably isn't... it is just more visible in this media saturation). So parents force their kids to not go out. But kids still have the same drives. If it wasn't chucking rocks at cars or getting into fights, you now do some Tekken 3 or Quake. But now the activity is well within maternal awareness (unlike before where children were wise enough to stay out of sight).
Mothers now just see more of the activity that has always been going on.
But the assumption is that a) kids are too stupid to try and hide things from their parents so b) they must be getting more violent.
So the best solution for all? Let the kids outside: get them some exercise and they will get into the same trouble although now you don't need to see it. Funny how self-deception seems to be the best course of action (as compared to over-parenting).
What is music when you despise all sound?
Slashdot community! Perhaps it's time to put the slashdot effect to good use. Let's fill his inbox. We /are/ the target market for this kind of drivel, really. We're the ones with the desired spending power, the intelligence, and presence to really make a difference. (Maybe) Anyways, my letter to donahue@msnbc.com is included below. Comments welcome in my inbox.
/barely/ controlled spin on teen violence stemming from video games absolutely ludicrous.
/imply/ you want to be the 'voice of reason' and counterpoint to the unholy shitstorm that is media sensationalism, but I don't see you trying very hard.
i ns_on_donahue/index.html
TO: Donahue
FROM: Gary Javed (gnosis23 (-at-) hotmail.com)
TITLE: Henry Jenkins and 'violent' video games: a rebuttal from a concerned parent.
Your treatment of Henry Jenkins was absurd and pitiful.
Your
You
How about actually looking at the facts that violent crime, especially amongst teens, is down enormously! (30 year low!!)
How about actually seeking out the causes for teens to lash out at the world around them? Frustration at being supressed, mis-labled, pigeon holed into roles that truly aren't them?
Being tagged, over and over again, as the suggested source of everything wrong in the world, a world that they inhereited with these very same problems intact?
I'm well beyond being a teenager, and a father of three. I grew up on video games. I play all sorts of games with my kids, from GTA 3 with my eldest son, to incredibly rewarding, complex, and nonviolent games such as Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. My kids are well balanced, caring, empathic, and intelligent. They aren't going to be the ones to enact another Columbine.
And I know, because I actually talk to them, and listen to their problems, complaints, and fears of this world. You know what they fear most? They fear having the freedom to express themselves, explore for themselves, and skin their knees a little in this 'game' called life being taken away from them. They fear having no room left to play and simply be kids, growing up and learning the way they should. From experience, and their own honest mistakes.
Save for perhaps independent film, art, fine music, and of course, fine literature, these games offer the most dynamic and complex storylines and experiences available of all media.
Mainstream TV is worthless. It does nothing but emphasize, glorify, and amplify all that is negative in life. And it wallows in it, and seeks to shock it's viewers into fear-based submission and defeat through it.
Your 'alternative' viewpoints are merely one more disgusting example of it.
I certainly won't be watching your show, and I'll be telling everyone I know my objections to you as well. (All over the globe! Viva la Internet!)
Shame on you, Phil Donahue.
Shame on you.
If you have not seen the following article, you should read it, and perhaps comment on it on your show or website. That would take some honest werewithal.
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/08/20/jenk
Regards,
Gary Javed
Both KGO and KSFO are Disney affiliates and sister stations.
It's Disney pandering to the extremists on all sides.
I have no doubt that all these DJs are good friends off mike.
Actually when I read that I saw nothing but ad homen and straw man "arguments" coming from the other side.
I ended the flow with 3 points to him, and 0 to them. No points countered by them and 1 counter to a non-point for him.
Merely repeating what so many millions of ignorant people are willing to believe and state themselves doesn't, in and of itself, make any kind of statement.
Rediculousness is funny, under any circumstance.
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
" From my view just a micron left of center..." And from my view, slightly right of center, I tend to see the opposite.
But what typically happens is that most of us tend to be sensitive toward the use of labels applied by those that oppose our views. If you start to *listen* you'll hear the same rhetorical strategy applied by both sides.
I don't know if this show has been on already. But I was watching a CBC station and there was a spot for an upcomming show on violent content in video games, (I saw several screen shots of Counter Strike) and the effect on minors. I don't know if this show has been on yet, but if eneyone has had a chance to see it I would be interested in your input. My personal feeling is that there is a rating system in effect. If I were to have a child of my own I would be sure to observe this system, and limit the time my own kids spend on TV and Games. Mostly because I don't really find TV has much content anymore. And as for games, me and many of my friends spent too much time on them when we were younger. And for the time we put in we really got nothing back in return (for all the fights I got in w/ my parents about how important hand eye co-odination is).
Well, given that the story was a response to the misperceptions viewers might have about the story's author based on the Donahue appearance, I think that an actual misperception about the story's author by one of the viewers of the Donahue appearance is pretty damn relevent to the matter at hand.
And my son plays these games. GTA3, Quake, etc. etc. etc. He is one of the most caring people I know. What are these game makers doing wrong?
dont say that ... im turning 25 next week and im already starting to get concerned about letting things encroach too much on my gaming time ... other things will definitely get cut before my hobbies, there is no way known im gonna live my life just for work and kids (which i dont have) ...
... but i agree that the lack of original games is frustrating, and the endless number of 'me too' style games out there are starting to get depressing ... it was always destined to happen once big business got a sniff of the money that could be made in the games industry. and the only way its gonna be turned back the other way is if enough people have the time, talent and desire to spend creating new and exciting worlds.
... you played gta3 for about an hour and got bored? i finished it on both my ps2 and pc, and if all goes well it should be the future style of games ... the creation of an entire world in which you have set goals to achieve, be they straight up missions, or something more subtle. kinda like morrowind, but even that has some 'world design' issues, the primary one being the fact that the day/night system is purely cosmetic ... oh yeah, and people probably need to stop pirating every game in sight and actually let your wallet show how much you appreciate innovation ...
...
a lot of crap games like the sims, and the newest NFL/FIFA/F1 200x games tend to do so well in the charts because they are popular with the non-hardcore-ish type gamers who dont have access to the stuff needed to make copies of games, and who will go out and buy the 2-3 games that they think are worth their money, even if they are just re-hashes of last years money-spinners, or whatever that 'mutton dressed as lamb' cliche is, in the creative sense
Yep, I tried running it on my Radeon 7200 and it ran slow as shit. So I went to the local CompURipoff and purchased a Radeon 8500, went out to the car, put my old Radeon 7200 in the box and went back into the store and returned the card with some BS story about not realizing I don't have AGP. Now GTA3 runs great on my computer... Pity I can't steal video cards in the game too.
i like your sig.
it is nifty.
0x0D 0x0A
It's a conflict of effort to try to keep children pure but let adults run wild. ...RUN adults RUN!!
who's effort? what are we? slaves?
context and tone are everything - compare Schindler's List to GTA3)
OK..watching a real-life event of genocide portrayed by real people..v. an obviously fictitious computer GAME..yeah good point.
Most of you don't think there's enough evidence of the influence of video games.
Enough?!? more like...most of you realize there's no real evidence linking violent games to causing violent behavior. Violent people who play violent games is not the same thing, and is by no means indicative.
Advertisers certainly have full confidence that what appears on the screen powerfully both affects and effects (produces) behavior.It's ironic that the video game-producing companies argue that their games don't influence behavior, but then turn around and spend lots of money on advertising which they obviously believe does influence behavior.
Your talking about two totally different things : advertising and games...no correlation at least in your usage
Follow the money - that's what they really know to be true.
I followed the money and ended up in your corrupt church being fondled by your priest...I guess that's just a NEW form of advertising.
Many corporations line up every year to pay up to $2,200,000 for 30 seconds of screen time during the Super Bowl. Maybe they have some research you don't know about? C'mon! We need evidence that media influences behavior like we need evidence that gravity influences behavior. Remember this story [slashdot.org] about the fast and furious influence of TV in Bhutan (the last place on earth to legalize TV)? The fact that TV (a passive medium) profoundly influences people is well established. Doesn't it make sense that an active medium such as video games would also have a powerful influence (albeit different in some ways)?
No, not really.
It troubles me that people have an appetite for violent content in the first place.
Hey, at least they're simulating their violence. If your weak little mind thinks you can figure out human nature...be my fucking guest. Welcome to the insanity we like to call humans.
Is amusement more important than character? Ha, stupid question .
good point.
It sounds to me like you probably DON'T need to playing games...yeah, you sound different...
Yes, I'm really bored enough to repsond to this bullshit!
tv is fake.
everything on tv is fake. talk shows and news magazines in particular are elaborately pre-staged rituals designed to illustrate a particular point. the rhetoric is designed to avoid mentally challenging the audience. provoking thought is a major no-no.
local news is a joke. network news is better than nothing. but if you really care about what's going on in the world, you really need to get a newspaper.
The violence now seen on TV news is to drum up support for the last "war on terrorism" and the impending war on Iraq. Don't get me wrong, I think the 9/11 all out sucked and the terrorists whom carried out the attack (their group included) should be "disciplined". But I see this whole war thing as being a convenient and easy way for Bush to finish what daddy didn't. The media is owned by only about 2 or 3 corporations right now. AOL/Time Warner is particularly bad, being owned by a christian supremicist who has the "I know what's right for you" attitude. Violence is bad unless is real and against people we don't happen to like. Become the media, research what you hear before you believe it. This won't work for the majority, but the rest of us will at least be sane.
good recommendation. very funny show, great satire, and when you least expect it, WHAM they made a good point. They even have an occasion interesting guest.
Last week they had a guy from the UN weapon inspectors on, it was cool.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There's a difference between the people who sell GTA3 and Donohue. The folks who sell GTA3 are selling an entertainment product. It's clearly labeled that it contains violence and gore that would upset small children. It contains themes of conflict that one might find in a movie for adults.
Donohue, on the other hand, goes to great lengths to position himself as an educator, enlightening the masses and pointing out evildoers. But what Donohue is selling is eyeballs, to advertisers. He's a talking head, who exists for the sole purpose of spending eight minutes getting you interested enough that you won't walk away during the CONTENT of the show: ads for linoleum cleaners, correspondence schools, and get-rich-quick schemes. It's the same difference between Larry Flynt and a child molester: Larry Flynt makes it clear that he's selling a product for mature adults, who consent to viewing the product, which they have to go out of their way to purchase.
Now, a run-of-the-mill pedophile, on the other hand, will pose as a friend. A helpful mentor who loves children. Who cares about them and can be trusted with them. And in between "protecting" them, well, that's where the real purpose comes in.
I can respect someone I disagree with, who has reasoned opinions and behaves in a way consistent with his words. I have no respect at all for the kind of sleaze that is Donohue.
I know, http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=1999-12 -13&res=l
I think I'll try this next time I'm in a Walmart Supercenter when 2 of their 50 registers are open, and 100 people are in line.
BTW, I have to totally disagree with the activists when they say that violent video games cause violent kids. If anything, violent video games have helped me not beat the crap out of people I'm pissed at. Nothings more therapeutic that finding a model that looks like someone who spent the whole school day making fun of you and then fragging it a few hundred times in a multitude of different scenario's. Maybe we should start having people start taking responsebility for their own actions and not finding some scapegoat that in all honesty's only defense against why they make violent games is because people buy them. Violent video games don't make violent kids, idiot parents that don't care what their kids do make violent kids. This is a scary article to read for someone who wants to get into the gameing industry.
Violence has nothing to do with computer games. It's in our genetic makeup as a species. In the last 100 years we have had wars that have killed many millions of people. This was BEFORE computer games were ever invented. A few hundred years ago, the Spanish Inquisition were torturing people and roasting them alive for 'heretical beliefs'. They'd never played GTA3. We're a violent species. Blaming computer games is not the answer. Computer games may even be a way to safely release our violent instincts. I love blasting people away on Wolf3D, but I'm not going to ever got down to my local shopping mall and do it.
HH
As usual the TV's logic is direly flawed, here is a sample of the logic used by these researchers;
"Our research concludes that 100% of all murderers play violent video games."
So they have: murderer(a)=> plays_doom(a)
then here is the flaw
"So computer games must encourage violence"
or they (wrongly) deduce
therefore; plays_doom(a) => murderer(a)
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO
this is wrong, and only possible if it is an "if and only if" relationship.
From the premise murderer(a)=>plays_doom(a)
you can't tell anything about whether a person is murderer given the fact plays_doom(a)
These researchers need a crash course in basic logic!!!
This kind of wrong arguments show up on tv all the time and most of the public are too dumb to realise that it is a fundamentally flawed argument.
The stageplay's ending has Alex settling down at the end, and makes the point that the ultraviolence is just a phase he's going through.
Now, whilst not exactly in the Clockwork Orange league, I can certainly relate to this. I'm 30 now - not old, but possibly closer towards the middle than I'd normally like to admit, and I've been playing computer games for about 21 years. My attitudes towards violence in gaming have changed a lot. I'm not outraged - far from it. Rather I now find ultra-accurate, 'you can see the gore oosing out'-type violence to be just tedious. Seen it all before, just not with anti-aliased fog or whatever the current graphic trick is.
I've been turned off PC gaming for exactly this reason - everything seems to be a war-based resource management game, a violent FPS or some combination of the two. There are exceptions to prove the rule, but mostly that holds true. Sport-based games would be one catagory of exception, but I don't have any interest in sports beyond the odd driving title.
To wrap up the meandering (forgive an old man...), I would suggest that violence in gaming will probably decrease as the gaming population gets older. It will always be there - in my opinion the main demographic will always be under twenty-fives, maybe even under twenties. However, once you've shot someone in the head and watched blood spurt out in one game, you've shot someone in the head and watched the blood spurt out in every game and you end up just wanting a bit of fun back.
Now where did I put my copy of Super Monkey Ball....?
Cheers,
Ian
Yep, agree with you all the way.
Cheers,
Ian
It is not the extremely low level garbage given in the article linked, but should be quite approachable as an introduction for anyone who hasn't done any serious advanced mathematics.
Jedidiah
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Let me tell you a story about the "freedom" the country down under has. Grand Theft Auto 3 was released and then recalled. It was re-released with Region-Specific Censors on it. In the land down under, we can't get the hookers to get into the cars with us. There are ways around it. That's your choice, whether you choose to patch the EXE, or whether you *shudder* change the Regional Settings, or whether you leave it as is, it's your choice. It also goes for the gameplay. You can do minimal illegal things to complete the game. Then, you may choose to keep on the straight and narrow and drive around the city, or fly if you can do this, or you can slaughter millions of people. Either can be fun, it's your choice.
"Assuming the role of host, White asks me whether I can identify video games that fully meet my ideals and I yammer like an idiot." Henry Jenkins
"...and halfa my paper was gone.. And I was like... 'unhhh?' " Ellen Feiss
Jenkins is the head of comparative media studies at MIT and he's so clueless about how talk shows work that he gets manipulated by the Donahue producers into thinking he's gonna participate in Lincoln/Douglas Part Deux.
Then he goes to the trouble of writing a long tedious article that no one among the Great Unwashed will ever read..
Bummer
Clearly he's totally clueless about comparative media. Give him the hook, MIT. Today.
Beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep!
Look at any textbook on screenplays - it tells you to set up the character in act 1, put them in conflict with something in act 2, and resolve the conflict in act 3. How much fun would Quake be if your enemies strew flowers in your path, gave you backrubs (but only with your agreement, and in a nonsuggestive way), and made you cappucino? Or if when you enter a room in Castle Wolfenstein the Nazis walk up, welcome you to their encounter group, and attempt to resolve their disagreements through interpretative dance? This is why Grand Theft Auto 3 sells better than Driving Miss Daisy 2: Shifting into Second Gear. You need conflict in order to have drama, and wars and gangsters have this ready made. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before we get The Sims: Domestic Violence. The Sims may seem non-conflictual, but it's all about the fact that the Sims and their neighbours never do exactly what you want.
"You are obviously not a mother trying to raise teenagers you stupid freaking moron idiot."
Well, yeah, mothers tend to be women, not men...
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
Somewhere on that article (or from this one), there's a link to the transcript of the Donahue show.
They keep on harping on two scenarios, killing a cop and killing a prostitute. The "concerned mother" keeps saying, "YOU GET MONEY! YOU GET HEALTH! NO CONSEQUENCES!"
Clearly forgetting that 10 seconds after the scene cop cars were suddenly much more agressive against you, and after more such infractions you eventually had the FBI coming after you with choppers. If you actually managed to survive that, please say hello to the National Guard, tanks and all.
Hello? No consequences? Getting run over by a National Guard tank isn't a consequence?
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Like anything Donahue says matters anyway. He is getting destroyed in the ratings something like a .5 share compaired to OReily's 2.5. Donahue won't be around in 5 months anyway and I say good riddens.
Capitalism: unequal distribution of wealth
Socialism: equal distribution of poverty
Which reminds me of Dennis Miller of course, who always mentions "that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." Often (always?) it seemed like a very sarcastic statement, but the idea that it is shameful to be mistaken, and then admit you're wrong, is one that has always really bothered me.
Of course, with Dennis Miller the whole show usually has a ring of sarcasm to it. You're never really sure which parts are meant to be taken seriously, so it's left to the viewer to make their own decisions. I watched his show(s) quite a bit when I was in high school, usually to get a few good laughs (after all, they usually follow as extended versions of his old SNL skits), but there was a time there where he either got a bit too serious or perhaps just didn't agree with me enough and I stopped watching. Similarly I tend to watch the O'Reilly Factor, which I guess is supposed to be a serious debate show, and the only thing I get from it is comedic value. Frankly, I can see why people hate it, because his style definitely works towards the goal of pissing people off when they don't agree with him, which can just as easily get people to keep watching as when people do agree with him and enjoy watching him 'stick it to' the people holding the opposing view point.
It's all just TV, you just have to take it the way you take things on the internet or in print. You judge the depth of the information presented, the value of the source, and look for other information that will show the same view point or an opposing view point. Very few issues presented in the media are so important that a judgment needs to be made quickly, so one can take time to review any information they might find before making up their minds. The most important thing, though, is to always be open to new ideas, to let your view change when new information is presented. There's nothing wrong with making quick judgments based on limited information, it's the way the human mind is wired to allow us to live (the whole fight or flight thing), but when it's not a life or death situation, we need to remember that the first judgment is not always the most accurate, and is never the most informed.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
I saw a Donahue episode several weeks ago regarding violence in video games. The one thing that I really -do- remember from that show was someone talking about the technical accomplishments of Grandtheft auto, and the shift in game design that it represents. So I don't know why this guy is whining. Maybe he just didn't think he got enough sound bytes. (if this is the same episode I saw)
The show definitely leaned more towards "Ok maybe there's no proof that these games cause violent behavior but I can't imagine that it doesn't have some negative effect". This guy did have opportunities to speak but he just tried to spew out his 'standard' arguments defending video games, and feels he got nailed for it.
Donahue is a very smart guy. His show is very new. Some shows are more balanced than others, but I think he's putting effort into getting creative discussions and the show is evolving.
Also, Donahue is very up front about his own personal opinions on political issues. So don't try to imply that he's got some hidden agenda. Of course he has an agenda. It's just not hidden.
I think this MIT guy's just kicking himself because he could have presented a good argument but he's realized that his canned speeches are more of a bad habit than inspiration. Don't blame Donahue for your bad habits and inability to improvise!
(and if I'm referring to a completely different show, then ignore everything that I just wrote:)
That article brought up a very interesting issue. Donahue was not promoting conservative ideas. In reality, he was urging for government takeover of the video game industry through "sensorship" tactics, which is exactly what any far-left extremist would do nowadays. Donahue openly shared love for communism, which is about as liberal as you can go (check out the image at http://www.tliquest.net/truth/political%20spectrum .jpg for info)
Conservatism is all about the parent's responsibility for their children. If they let their children get messed up from violent stuff, then it's their fault. Donahue in no way could ever be conservative; he is a perfect example of liberal relativism and secular humanism.
Here's what he's rallying for:
socialism - which is, according to Marx, "the abolition of private property"
against:
capitalism (my viewpoint) - which is the free trading and exchange of materials, and the respect of the vitality of private property and personal rights.
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
grep -ri 'should work'
"I'd like to take that stupid X Box and crack that moron from MIT over the head with it."
I wonder if the parent (?) who wrote that realized how ironic that statement was.
She was nervous to be interviewed, of course. If she had been, I'm sure her experience would have echoed this writer's. TV news, and a lot of the daily print stuff, is all about false dilemmas; they state everything as if it was about diametrically opposed positions, in order to heighten the drama of the story. That's what the style of O'Reilly is all about, only he takes it the extra, Rupert Murdoch-approved step of being an advocate rather than a moderator. Ray Suarez is about the only really great moderator I've heard on a talk show in the last ten years.
Alas, we will never know what Mom's interview would have been like. The news producers, it turned out, wanted mainly to have a picture of some employee getting a mammogram from a woman doctor. They were clearly interested in getting the juiciest angle they could onto broadcast TV -- hubba hubba. That made Mom uncomfortable, she didn't want to be exploiting peope whose care she was responsible for, so she told them no. They went to some other company and got their cheesecake mammogram.
Not quite Donahue, but it's bad enough. You think?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Your choice of the bible as a reliable reference reminds me of something appropriate to the main post. Jenkins should have immediately got on the case of the mother for letting her child play a mature game - but he was not ready for the "debate".
What you reminded me of is a web site I saw coving debating with creationists. The creationists spend all their time destroying arguments for evolution, because they know that their own position (that the bible is literally correct in every way) is extremely weak (no proof of noah's flood, fossils older than 5000 BC - important as they advertise creationist "science"). And like the chat show, they ensure that the audience is stacked in favour of the creationist (the audience already believe and want their belief reaffirmed by this "scientist" being preached into the ground).
The advice given on the website is two fold - first off, don't get sucked into doing this as it will be heavily slated against you. Secondly, if you do get involved, research and prepare - don't get snared into defending your general field of expertise (you won't have time), force the debate back to the relevant points.
Your mother in the show is blaming GTA3 due to her own shortcomings as a parent - the question should have been "why did parents allow their children to look at mature subject matter"? The subject matter is blatently marked as not for kids, so any examples of kids violence being used as an argument to ban the material is invalid.
Warning: Page has background music Lyric's to Henley's "Dirty Laundry"
It is appropriate.
So if video games promote violence, soap operas must be the reason marriages don't work? On a similar note, matches cause arson! ban matches! If there were no matches or lighters, there would be no arson!
Sheesh....
HAND
XML causes global warming.
Maybe us video gamers can team up with drunk drivers. Our new slogan can be:
I don't know about you, but I always play Grand Theft Auto 3 better when I'm drunk.
Go ahead, mod me down. Fuck you if you can't take a joke.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Plus they got those damn tanks, and those FBI guys are freakin' insane!! Have you seen how they drive? It's crazy!
"Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."
i'm sorry if i sound anti-religious here, but spirituality and taking part in a religion have nothing to do with morality.
people who are dependent on religion to learn morals will have a hard time learning to spot when their chosen religion is doing "bad" things. just stop and think about al qaeda, kkk, those people who bombed abortion clinics in the name of some sort of christianity, or any other infamous religious terrorist groups. the world abounds in them.
true morality is simply taught by parents setting an example for their kids. this takes time and attention from the parents. by attending religious events with their children, parents end up spending more time with their children and generally set a good example (people in religious events i've attended tend to be pretty considerate and respectful toward one another) for their children to follow.
i don't mean any offense to any religion out there, but that is my pan-religious explanation of why religion is often associated with morality.
FYI, Prof. Jenkins will be our guest on Digital Village this Saturday, Aug 24.
Having read the article, my main observation is that the author should have watched a few episodes of O'Reilly Factor and Donohue as preparation, rather than memorizing a bunch of meaningless statistics.
In fact, the article is one big anecdote on how unfair the Cable Talkshows are. Well boo hoo. Let's see something posted on here more interesting than some point-headed intellectual's whining!
That said, I agree with all his points about video games (it's called "Grand Theft Auto" for god's sake. Why are all these dumbass parents abdicating responsibility for what media their children consume!? However, Trolls aside, everyone on this site agrees with the author. Let's stop the navel-gazing and move on.
/.
just wanted to be 400
...and I haven't killed anybody in meatspace yet. Heck, I haven't had the urge to even touch a chainsaw (but the BFG would be nice sometimes).
I guess the reprogramming the liberals yammer about didn't take.
I know when I'm being oppressed mentally I just like to chill and not get any frustration out. Being 15 and an atheist, I can tell you that lacking 'mass every Sunday' has yielded me no less moral than anyone else. In fact, I'm more moral than most people I know that are religious. When my parents had me (my parents are also 13 years divorced, and I'm a bastard, just so you know where I'm coming from), they made a decision to not force me to religion, to raise me secularly, in the hopes that I would find a religion, a religion would find me, or I would be whatever. My dad's an atheist, whilst my mom is a Methodist, yet I know rigth from wrong, good from bad. Go figure.
And pornography? What is wrong with porn? Name me one thing. Go on. It's degrading? These girls (95% of the time) agreed to do those things, wether their reasons were good or not. They go into it knowing what will happen. Anyone that afterwards said they didn't know, well tough shit, I guess you didn't research your decision as far in as you should've. I won't lie, I look at porn, and I always have a girlfriend that I love and loves me back. Porn has not altered the state of my mental being, even towards the opposite sex. If anything, it has made me realize how fragile a good relationship is, with all those one night stands and sex with no feeling. I've never had sex, neither has she, and we're defineately not rushing anything. But then again, you wouldn't expect that from a teenage you jsut stereo-typed the hell out of, would you?
While I will agree that broken homes play a part, and that irresponsible parents are the reason that this stuff happens, the dinner thing is bogus, as well. Because of working long and hard, many families can't have dinner like that together, because more and more, both parents work. My mom has been remarried for the past 11 years, and my step-father is a great guy. But unfortunetaly, they both work, and dinner is almost never eaten together, and is usually permeated by watching The Simpsons. Yet I'm fine, as are my little sister and little brother.
I'll also concede that those games shouldn't get into the hands of kids, but not all minors. My friends are more mature than most of the adults we know. I've been playing DooM since I was around 11 or 12 (when my parents thought I was mature enough to play) and listening to metal for as long as I can remember. Perhaps what you're looking to prevent are children--and people in general--that never test boundaries, that never question. Religion does nothing to help a sensible society. It introduces morals and ethics, but so do nursery rhymes. Go figure.
And hey, I apologize if information coming from a kid that actually lives the ways alot of people say violence comes from is contrary to popular thought and if I opened minds. No, really. I am. If you want to find me, I'll be in the confession booth, asking forgiveness from some false diety created to preach sameness and keep power where it doesn't belong.
And that was a rant, I don't believe in altering streaming conscious, so bam. There ya go. I'll probably be modded down, but hey...eff them.
We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
Being a long time member of the QBasic Programming Community, I remember that as one of the best games...ever. made by M/K productions...ah, those were the days. After I blew Saget's head off, it made watching him at least a little more standable. And they say those things increase violence? Hell, it's not violent things that cause violence, it's stupid things that cause violence. But either way, I would recommend absolutely everyone going out on google and finding a copy of that game. If the source code's out, I see no reason to implant a picture of Donahue there. Or get really creative on this subject matter with a picture of Tipper Gore.
We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.