Slashdot Mirror
Looking at Video Games and Violence
rootrider writes "Mark Rahner of the Seattle Times has written a great article discussing the recent trend here in the US to outlaw the purchase of violent video games by minors. I'm sure articles have been written in the past that refute the idea that video games lead to violence, but this is the first mainstream article I've seen that details the issue and does it well." The trend isn't really that new. In the past, Ozzy Osbourne and Dungeons and Dragons have been favorite scapegoats, and when I was in high school it was gangsta rap music. I can't wait until we can attribute violence to the nightly news.
Behind every kid who "plays too many games for their own good" is a shitty parent. I think the mediamorons and other general arsholes are confusing the symptom with the cause.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Actually, you ask an interesting question: what is the influence of news reporting when it comes to violence?
I see two kinds of influence:
* News reports may create copycats out of weak minds. Let's say you catch some cretins throwing rocks on cars from bridges over freeways. If you make too much publicity of the case, you'll have imbeciles doing the same thing all over.
* More importantly, news reporting may alter the way people perceive the world and human interactions.
Let us take international relations. If you're brought up in the idea that your country is the best in every domain and the rest of the world is just made of jealous jerks, you obviously have a different outlook on violence - specifically, you may not be reluctant to approve the use of violence by your government.
However, I do myself play Soldier of Fortune II and so I can understand that some might be concerned that kids playing a game all day long that involves shooting your opponent might somehow be predisposed to shooting someone in real life.
But training, as the D.C. snipers have suggested? That's crazy. Even after playing so much that my right wrist aches, I can't imagine that I'm now more capable with an AK47 than I was before SOFII.
Furthermore, when I was a kid, trying not to get eaten by Tyrannosaurus Rex, we actually ran around outdoors with fake guns or BB guns and stalked each other. Those low-tech methods were surely more effective at grooming future killers than the sit-on-your-ass and get fat video alternatives.
Since the average gamer, apparently, is 28, whose at fault for that? Themselves, or their parents?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
and I'll believe this bullshit that somehow games teach kids to kill. People in the media (and our our own representatives) claim that these games are "murder trainers" but they can't even teach you to hold a gun properly. How to aim a gun. In the games, you don't even have to look down the sights on the gun to aim!
Thats just the starting point. The fact is, the only person who makes you do anything is YOU. I grew up on good ol' PBS. Monty Python didn't turn me into a drag racing nun. Or a nude pianist. Red Dwarf didn't turn me into a cat. The Red Green Show didn't make me very handy (I wish it had though, I'm not all that handsome). And that was all before I became a teenager. Add in the Atari 2600 I swapped in for a Nintendo in my 6th grade year, and later for a super nintendo, and according to these idiots, I've turned out to be some kind of saint or something since I haven't shot anyone or tried to fry them with Street Fighter 2 moves.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
#1, The government should have no say in what I buy /. land,
for my children, this is just rediculous. #2, Most
of the games I bought for my Playstation/Computer
were bought with the mindset I want something I'll
like just as much as my son will. So does this
mean that me buying resident evil and such and then
letting my son play make me a bad father?? I don't
know how many of you have kids out there in
but the ones who do I think will agree that kids now
don't quite fit into the old catagories. I mean my
son (age 6) already has better views on life, and
understands a lot more than most people that are
older than me. I don't think it's the fact that
video games teach them anything, I think it's the
fact that most parents buy kids video games to
"keep kids out of thier hair". I mean you take
the whole colombine shooting, these kids had all
kinds of stuff in the basement (pipe bombs/whatever),
so that just shows how much attention the parents
were paying to them. I think the parents of these
kids that go on shooting sprees just don't want to
admit that they weren't doing thier job, or that
maybe thier kids had some real issues. It's just
easier to blame a game company, and not to mention
that if you actually do win a case against a game
company you get a pretty good payment. These
people need to worry more about talking to thier
kids and less time trying to take thier rights.
Just my opinion
Scoobywan
So, Shock and Awe, the Sony videogame, will be responsible for corrupting youth, but Shock and Awe, the GWBushCorp's real-world enterprise of death and conquest is what, exactly? A beautiful inspiration of courage and restraint, suitable for the instruction and edification of all children? Please. We need to set up a detox center for all the people with Lee Greenwood-addled brains.
Actually in the Columbine fallout those were pretty much all banned from many schools. There was even a kindergarten aged kid suspended for posessing the inch long gun from his GI Joe.
Lately there was even a kid suspended for having a laser pointer. Guess the teacher mistook it for a laser sight or something.
Never underestimate the people who will use any event to ram through their agendas while everyone else is too stunned to object
.
I'm not anti-American; I've got numerous American friends and colleagues, I've worked in the US for a while, I was in New York last January and will come back to the US for business purposes at least once more this year.
Of course, my message was alluding partly to the American media. My opinion on these is that even alleged serious newspapers such as the New-York Times have degraded standards when it comes to international news. All too often, the international news articles would be more appropriately moved to a "commentary" or "opinion" section.
One troubling fact, for instance, is that all too often these articles dwell on alleged motivations, often implying that actions by foreign people or leaders are motivated by anti-Americanism or envy. Let me given you an example: in a recent article commenting on the opposition from several judicial bodies to a proposal to change French criminal procedure to include plea bargain, the journalist commented: "In France, perceived concessions to English-American forms of law, no matter how slight, have run into strong resistance.". Now, of course, this implies this resistance is motivated by anti-Americanism, ignoring real concerns about constitutional rights such as the right to a fair trial. In short, the journalist attributes motivations to people who cannot defend themselves. Is that reporting, or partisan comment?
I won't even mention the moral judgments routinely doled out as facts. The point is that such so-called reporting is bound to shape the impressions of the reader in a certain direction, in this case to believe that any opposition to the policies of the United States government is motivated by dubious issues.
Now you can understand better what happens in countries such as Saudi Arabia. In those countries, the media and the education system are even more biased. People are taught from their infancy that, say, the Jews are cunning liars. They are taught about the moral superiority of their religion compared to the "immoral" West.
The parallel is striking. Self-righteous biased reporting replacing facts and objective analysis. Of course, the situation in Saudi Arabia is far worse than in any Western countries, but still one should always pay attention to the agendas of the media outlets.
The link to violence? Why do all these people sponsors terrorist groups through so-called "charities"? Where do they find the terrorists? Part of the explanation seems to be that prejudice ingrained from infancy breeds violence.