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.
PVP comic strip from yesterday
Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!!!
Behind most "well meaning" laws designed to protect children, is a facist who simply wants to limit your freedom.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
infuriated Slashdot reader takes sniper rifle and shoots clueless politicians.
Can I blame Denis Leary now?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
I wrote a paper about this topic for my Intro to Communication Theory class, available for download in pdf ... note, the pdf is actually crappy quality compared to the original cwk file, since i couldn't track down a decent distiller program
09
During times of war I tend away from video games which involve killing people. Images in the news, particularly if you've gone to the Al-Jezeera site and looked at their un-censored images (yes, this is what war is really like, unlike what you see on US news broadcasts), disturb me and I tend to shift of to strategy games and D&D (where I'm hacking monsters to bits, rather than humans.)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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."
Will kids be forbidden to download it?
What ever will happen to our Government's new military recruiting tool?
(I suppose they'll go back to talking to real life recruiters and finding out.. oh nevermind!)
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
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.
I love how the article says that the Beltway Snipers supposedly practiced with Halo. If they said that or not... I don't know, but either way, even if they DID... how the HELL is a game any good practice for a real sniper rifle. True, you get hand eye coordination, or adjusted vision for it... But you don't line a target up in sights in the game like you would with a REAL gun in your hand. If Halo had a sniper gun attachment which you played with (Like Time Crisis' pistol), then maybe.... but not with that GIANT xbox controller.
I don't put much stake in the whole "violent video games makes you eeeevil" thing either. It's sort of another source for ideas. Just how many murder mystery books have "inspired" murders? Think "Basic Instinct."
But kids don't read these days, so there've been fewer book-burnings...
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein
Half life and counterstrike didnt make me violent. I was a sick evil fuck long before that. ALl the antisocial dangerous stuff i know and think i learned the old fashoned way, From reading dead tree paper books. Yes folks, there was dangerous thoughts around before the internet.
What violent games have done is allwed me an amazingly simple venting system to get rid of stress. Get home from work, and go kill virtual people. Works wonders for relaxation. Exercise would probably work, but hey, im lazy. THey can have my video games over several dead bodies.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
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!
As long as RC tanks, tinsoldiers and other war toys are banned as well, banning violent videogames is just hypocritical activism.
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
Can you rap, Cowboyneal?
I do have an issue with the 'embedded' coverage not showing complete combat footage or dead bodies. There should be an adult news channel where the full account resides - to remind us what is being lost in those battles.
War is sad, its just sometimes necessary. The whole truth of it should be shown regardless.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Look, I'm as liberal-hippie-pinko-commie-fag as they come, but I'm sick to death of people defending the manufacturers of ultra-violent media as if they were struggling artists in need of protection. It's easy enough to point an accusing finger at the parents for not insulating their children from the evils of the world (especially when the finger-pointer is not a parent), but the truth is that it takes a village to raise a child, and we all bear some responsibility for what our children grow up believing is acceptable bahaviour. If we bombard them with this dreck day in and out (and I'm not just referring to MA games, but all the other pointlessly violent garbage that Hollyweird shovels down our throats by the truckload), it seem to me to be rather obvious that this will have an adverse influence on their perception of violence. I find it ironic that the media is always the first to wave around stacks of studies that demonstrate no connection between media violence and human behaviour, yet turn around and spend millions every year on advertising...presumably because of it's ability to influence human behaviour.
A lot of the assumptions made in this particular article were clearly innacurate (anyone who has spent five minutes in an Electronic Boutique knows that the average age of a video game purchaser is less than 28) , and it struck me as simply another knee jerk reaction to protect our freedom to sell crap to kids. The media corporations rallying behind the banner of free speech could not give two bits for our freedom. They are simply defending their market.
Will it make kids killers? No. Evolution made us killers. Civilization is what keeps us from killing eachother.
Let's try to be more civilized.
I was looking through some old stuff the other day when I came across some AD&D manuals, etc.
Whilst browsing, I came across one of my old characters, a cleric who had chronic gastric problems that would most likely be fatal. I remember having that hobbled priest when I was 15, and thinking about how damn unlucky I was to have to play a virtual cripple.
Ten years later I was diagnosed with chronic ulcerative colitis (a bowel disease similar to Crohn's disease), exactly what that cleric had. And, similarly, my situation deteriorated over an 18-month period until the day came when I had to choose between major surgery and certain death - a seemingly obvious choice but one which was still the hardest decision I've ever had to make (believe me, if you're ever in the same boat then you'll understand why).
Now, I'm not saying that AD&D ruined my life, or that playing it cast some wicked curse on my life. But I do think that, any day now, I'm due to find a ring of invisibility, boots of speed and a +3 vorpal sword, and when that day comes, I'm gonna kick some major ass.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
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.
I think the cart has been put before the horse here. Instead of saying that the games inspire the violence, perhaps it is accurate to say that those with violent tendancies are attracted to these games. It sounds logical since only a small number of people/kids who play them participate in real-life violence. Of course, further conclusions can be drawn about other influences, i.e. parents' roles, etc. Saying the games inspire the violence is like saying masturbating causes rape.
A short introduction: My fridge kicked the bucket two weeks ago. I quickly started investigating where to buy a new and cheap fridge fast. The trip went to the Expert chain on the other side of the road and I inquired about the latest Whirpool fridges. I talked to the salesperson on the showroom floor and then went to the checkout to investigate the prices. I also started to look for a stove and a to-piece ceramic plate for later
There I saw a familiar sight. There was a poster of GTA3 along with a printed message saying "This store does not carry the following games: GTA3, GTA: Vice City and BMX XXX. because we don't sell violent games to youngsters. We boycott these games"
The really catered to the asshole in me and I asked exactly why they did not want to sell these games. The clerk stumbled out som answer like "We don't want young people to see graphic contents etc.". I asked her if she had actually read the covre of games like GTA:VC. The cover here is covered with a warning not to distribute to youngsters, approx 1/3 of the front in size. She had not.
I asked her if the store prevously had a practise of selling this game to children, thus ignoring the manufacturer's warning. She said no.
I then said that if you only sold the game to people 18 years of age, why boycott it? She could not give an answer to that.
I then spoke to the store manager and said: "I disagree to your boycott and have decided to cease all purchases from this store and all Expert stores until you let people think a bit for themselves. This wil cost you the following in lost sales in near future."
The owner really got something to think about then. He looked dumbfounded.
I walked out of that store and went to a mom-and-pop electronics storer that did not carry videogames at all and they were nicer and cheaper. After completing the purchases there I went to the Expert store and showed the manager the 3000USD reciept for sales he missed. I underlined that I would NEVER purchase anything there, but walk a click to the next store.
Again, I believe he started to think about the boycott.
amen.
I watched thousands of Tom and Jerry cartoons as a kid but have never hit anyone in the face with a frying pan.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm
overall, violent crime in the US has been on the decline since 1993.
interesting coincidence: the decline started the year DOOM was released, one of the first widespread, graphically violent games.
and a proven statistic: the higher the unemployment, the higher the crime rate. does this mean we can make bad economic policy illegal too?
This is unreal. As if the fact that the United States Army employs a video game in order to lure youngsters into its ranks isnt enough evidence.
Have you guys EVER studied behavioral sciences at ALL?
How is it that you people feel you are apt to comment on such a complex issue as learning and attitude formation?
Theres a reason movies have ratings. And its not because kids cry. Developing minds are extremely susceptible to suggestion. Attitudes and emotions are extremely fragile.
There is a concept in behaviorism called association, best described in 1898 by Thorndike as the Law of Effect: "Behavior leading to satisfactory states is likely, behavior leading to unsatisfactory states, less likely."
There is a difference between consciously engaging the lyrics of a song or words in a book and actively reliving experiences (remember, observations and sensations are experiences) involving violence and death.
You internalize (naturalize) the behavior and the resulting states of mind that occur. It will NOT affect your conscious thought. You will not suddenly be overcome with a desire to kill. That is just sillyness.
Instead, your thoughts and actions will be characterized by these associations you have made in your mind. They will evoke a reflexive, emotional response. your attitudes will be underlined by the extreme levels of violence you are submerged in.
Its great for the warmongering USA, thats why the law will never pass. A nation whose attitudes are stereotyped by violence will not object to : War in Vietnam, War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq again, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on your fucking mind. Even if war after war after war after war after war FAILS TO ACHIEVE THE STATED OBJECTIVES.
think about it.
before you speak.
-- "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Jean Jacques Rousseau
But one of the things I rarely see mentioned is this - not terribly unlike the JFK consipracy theorists of the world, people who make the bold sweeping claim that video game violence caused things like Columbine do like to hang on to the tiny shreds of evidence that support their theory and ignore the mountains of evidence against it.
The lawyer mentioned in the article has attempted to make a living off of suing video game makers. His Kip Kinkle and Columbine cases were thrown out, so either he's making money either way or he's getting really frustrated right now. In addition to the Beltway Sniper case, he's suing the government over the America's Army game. His mentality is that of a spammer - it doesn't matter how sleazy and slimy what he does is, so long as he gets paid.
And the fact is that all you have to do is bring a picture of a dead kid and a waving finger to Congress and you can get any law in the world you want passed.
But think about it - how many violent kid incidents do you ever hear about? Columbine, Kip Kinkle, those kids in Arkansas, that kid in Flint. That's what, four? And what did they all have in common? Well three of them were white kids shooting white kids (the kid in Flint was a black kid shooting a white kid - significant since the kids were six years old). But what about black kids shooting black kids? It happens all the time, but the news never centers on it. Similarly, when Elizabeth Smart went missing it was Chandra Levy Part II, but the same week a black girl from a poor neighboorhood was kidnapped and no one outside of her state cared.
So the parents groups, mostly white people terrified of this happening to them, use this handful of incidents and blow them out of proportion. The game industry is growing while the overall crime rate is dropping. We haven't had a big school shooting since Columbine. And the biggest retailers (Wal-Mart, Target, GameStop) won't sell M-rated games to minors.
Personally I support not selling M-rated games to minors, but not at the point of law. The movie industry hasn't needed laws to enfore R-rated movies. Do kids still see them? Sure. But they can't just walk in. And consider this - kids can't pirate cigarettes, but if you make it to where kids can't buy M-rated games by law they'll just hit up the newsgroups.
Schnapple
Some people say the the problem is that parents arn't paying attention to what games the kids are playing.
I think the problem is that the parents arn't paying attention to the kids at all.
Just recently I watched a show on Court TV about a 12 year old killing his baby cousin (one or two years old) using a WWF wrestling move. He was left to babysit his cousin alone as well. The show also talked about video game violence in brief, basically saying that it's on of the mediums that kids may want to immitate in real life.
The question that comes to my mind is: Are video games/wrestling/media/etc causing the violence, or are the kids?
Well, that's a no-brainer, kids are committing the acts. I've known many young boys who really look up to WWF wrestlers and immitate violent acts such as those in video games. Not because they want to hurt anybody, but because they want to immitate their idols and what they see. With wresling, the see a guy get a beatdown, and magically get back up, and after the show is over, they walk out of the ring unscathed. With video games, I think it's the player's interaction, coupled with the glamorization of violence that would make some kids want to try it out in real life.
Kids *are* impressionable like that. Which on one hand makes this topic understandable. But what is the media in general supposed to do about it? Make everything sugar-coated and soft for the sake of preventing some deaths? Should the world go on a censor-spree because one kid may pick up a gun and decide to go on a killing spree while exclaiming "I'll bury you in a lunckbox!"?
Every parent wants to blame video games, the gun manufacters, the internet, movies, you name it. It's easier to pass the buck then it is to accept the responsibilty. Oh parents are taking responsibility because they banded together and got a bill passed in to law? How exactly does that help?
"Because just as parents don't want retailers to sell beer or wine to their children or tobacco to our children because it's bad for them, they're saying 'Help us. Don't make this stuff available to our kids.' Parents absolutely do need to take responsibility, but in society today, you and I both know that it's pretty easy for kids to go next door and get hold of something that parents won't allow them to have."
This is understadable as well. Retailers shouldn't be selling alcohol or tobacco to minors, just as gun manufacters shouldn't be selling guns to minors. There are laws to prevent that, and they do help the problem. However, these are things that directly harm children. With video games and the media, they're more passive, so the direct link isn't as clear.
In any case, there's something about American parents not wanting to take responsibility for their children. You shouldn't leave a 2 year old in the care of a 12 year old, period. Or if your child gets a hold of your gun and kills someone, who's at fault, you or the kid?
Most of these cases are directly linked to the parents inability or laziness. It's true, parents can't keep an eye on their kids 24/7, but they can take steps and get more involved in their kids lives. "Let me read the box on that video game", or "what are you watching on tv?" Just don't leave them to do whatever they want. Spend time with them and what they're doing, be their moral conscious and guide while their playing that video game, or cheering their favorite wrestler on.
The more you get involved with what you're kids do, the more you can instill in them what is acceptable in real life, and what is not.
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
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.
Mystery Science Theatre 3000 meets Dark Dungeons
It's only dangerous if 'weird' kids listen to it. Same deal with Dungeons and Dragons, and Ozzy Osbourne. Weird stuff generates paranoia, when there are kids out there who draw pictures of Iraqi's/Saddam getting slaughtered in detail, and their teachers and friends commend them for it, calling them patriots. Kids go around beating the shit out of weaker kids, and the weaker kids go into stuff like D&D, or violent videogames, and suddenly the parents think they're gonna shoot up the school. Perhaps they should try solving the problem at the root. If anything, violent videogames are good, because they help kids vent. I had times in high school where I was pissed off and instead of trying to go and beat the crap out of someone, I would sit down and play Doom or Half life, and bam, all my problems would die down. But does the older generation understand? No... they love demonizing the children's generation so they can take away from their own faults. */rant*
Whenever I see those reports about video games/D&D/gangsta rap, etc making teens violent, etc, I often wonder why it is that the people that say this (i.e. my parents, grandparents, etc) are not so messed up & violent.
Let's go back one generation (relative to me - I'm 24 years old, my father is 53). Many of the people my father knew were in the military fighting in Vietnam (he joined later and was posted in Germany). A good part of society thus experienced and were exposed to REAL violence. Not only that, they were also TRAINED to effectively kill & destroy as well as to blindly follow orders. Hmm... my father and his friends are not going around killing people or blowing up bridges.
Same thing goes with the generation previous to my father - my grandparents. They were part of a much bigger, worldwide war (WW2) that not only focused entire countries to supporting the war effort, but also sent massive numbers of people to fight. Most of these people managed to reintegrate into society and lead normal, non-violent lives.
Today, my father reads war/military books and watches war movies. This is his virtual world that he finds interesting; it's just an escape from reality. He might even dream, in his mind, of being in those situations and it might involve very violent actions. But, like any sane person, he can distinguish between reality and the imaginary and, as such, it's harmless. Living out parts of the imaginary is also perfectly fine since he, like everyone else, is aware of what is acceptable in society and law.
Same goes with computer games. Whenever we play a computer game, we are experiencing the imaginary world created by the game developer. What we do in this imaginary world may be of some use in the real world but, for the most part, it remains in the imaginary (Rainbow 6 does not make me an anti-terrorist specialist - nor would I ever concede myself to being one!). If we choose to live out part of the imaginary, virtually all people will do so in a way that is acceptable.
The very rare cases involving people that don't have this moral compass or cannot distinguish between reality - they are the people that give the rest of us a poor image. Specifically, it's the fault of the media for grossly oversimplifying the subset of society that we make up (i.e. all computer game users are violent).
The good news? As we get older, we will be the ones that control society. Computer games and their ilk are not going away either - infact they are getting more common & widespread (it's not just the domain of geeks). As such the nutcases today can say whatever they want today because in the future people will (hopefully) disregard their message since we know it's a load of crap.
Fin.
This is just plain ignorant. You know, real people do get killed by busty women flipping upside down and spinning their legs like a pinwheel of death. A friend of mine died that way.
Just as tragic, I had a [different] friend who was trapped in a giant maze, pursued, and eventually devoured by a giant yellow blob with an enormous snapping jaw.
I don't ever want to hear you minimize the evils of video game violence again, understand?
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!