Slashdot Mirror
Thompson Vs. Jenkins On VG Violence
1up.com has a feature up including side-by-side interviews with Anti-Gaming Muckraker Jack Thompson and Prof. Henry Jenkins. The site manages to ask both proponents some tough questions, and they get some realistic answers in response. From the article's Jenkins interview: "Education is the key, not legislation. If you heavily regulate the industry it will narrow what games are in the market, and retailers will only carry content that is suitable for the youngest of players. Retailers won't carry a Mature-rated game if you move to an enforceable system. We saw this with the comic industry in the '50s. The other way to approach this problem is to put the burden on the consumer. We have to educate."
Is that videogames don't make you any more prone to violence or less empathetic. I've been playing violent video games since I was four years old. Last week, after killing some mice that had infested our shed, especially the baby ones, I felt genuine distress at having just ended something's life that didn't deserve to have it ended. It was something on my mind for quite a while. I was playing Mortal Kombat at 5 years old, and I have always known the difference between fantasy and reality. Legislation is definatly not the key to solving this kind of violence - it seems to me that violent videogames are an excuse rather than the real reason. Remember comic book violence of yesteryear, or how videos were ruining society? I will say though, videogames make you more paranoid. By far - I always have the need to scan rooftops for snipers.
Every time I see something written by this guy I get the excruciating need to land a neat headshot on him. I call that his plan backfiring.
Jack Thompson pisses me off.
In fact, it's a counterproductive sales tool because millions of kids want the Mature-rated games.
Why do kids want M rated games? I can think back to being a kid. "This game looks fun, I think I'll play this." First off, it wasn't specifically that the game was rated M that I wanted to play the game. However, I got told by my mom "No, you can't play that - it's for older kids." When you're not allowed to have something that you want, then you want it even more - that's how the human mind works, especially in children. I don't think he gets this.
Playing the Left/Right game? Give me a fuckin' break. This guy is probably just saying these things to try to make money, but in the process he is really trying my restraint. I suppose he might throw in extra insult by trying to say that such a feeling demonstrates his point.
Both government and home have shared responsibilities here. Parents are negligent in letting kids play these games for hours at a time, but even if we do everything right to keep a kid away from these games, his classmates are playing them. He could just play somewhere else. We have an aggressive industry taking advantage of derelict parents. The whole youth culture is immersed in this stuff. So go on a negligent parent power trip and leave my games alone. I am an informed gamer with no misconceptions about the violence in GTA:SA and with parents that know I can deal with spurting red polygons and (gasp) swearwords. Get off my cloud.
The anti-gaming guy is represented by the English flag of Saint George and the three lions coat of arms of England. Because he's a 'crusader' apparently. Please leave our national symbols out of something as trivial as a debate about video game violence. I don't find that acceptable, perhaps they'd like to change the logo for the pro-gaming guy to a blood spattered stars and stripes or perhaps a burning copy of the Koran?
tough decision for the yanky government on this one - if they educate they risk having a public that will start asking questions (and we can't have THAT now can we!)
I really hope that people get the right to choose rather than being told what they can and cannot do... that is not freedom, it is slavery!
Just from an outsiders PoV it seems that the american people are more and more putting the burden of things onto someone elses shoulders... eg - manufactures of drills warning not to put the drill in your mouth... etc etc
A Tale of 2 idle hands
Thompson states that if the industry does not change, there will be a Columbine to the factor of 10. Does this not sound more ridiculous than Fallujah x2?
It should.
Thompsons statement regarding terrorist training through videogames such as Full-Spectrum Warrior is, I hope, hyperbolic prima facae to most of you. Much, much, more training and planning goes into acts of terrorism than Thompson seems to give them credit for (it's a little bit more than shoot the enemy when you see him pop up on the screen).
Saying that restricting the export of tactical videogames to foreign countries under say, the EAR or ITAR, would obviously not stem the tide of violence in Iraq and around the world just as restricting violence in videogames will not stop these children, who are under severe emotional strain or experiencing deep depression, or even beginining to show signs of a personality disorder, from acting out violently. Columbine was perpetrated by children who had severe social and emotional problems, and who were left alone to create pipe bombs and amass weapons in their basement. This was partly a failure of supervision by the parents and, OC partly beyond their control. Columbine had nothing to do with videogames.
Shame on Mr. Thompson for invoking terrorism as a reason for restricting videogame sales.
Don't cheapen their sacrifice, ambulance chaser.
murder simulators
that has got to be the biggest spin of all time...
look, jack even said education was part of the solution, and henry made a very good point... Unlike the previous generation, at least many young parents today have grown up playing games, so they will know that not all games are appropriate for young kids.
i know my mom was very interested in what games i was playing while i was growing up and even more interested in what i was watching on TV...
my father was in the coin op business since the 70's. ive grown up around video games, hunting, guns, and the military...if any one should be ready to snap and go on a personal black ops mission...its me. and frankly, i think i "normal".
i can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. and i dont take joy in seeing others suffer.
this burden lies with the parents. if they would take a proactive role in their childs life alot of stuff like teen violence and teen pregancy would be on the decline instead of the rise.
but now since both parents are typically working, who is doing the parenting...britney spears and tommy lee...tommy verciti and lara croft...Jenna Jameson and ron jeremy...
people need to look at what they are doing within their own family units to solve the problem. do your kids play violent video games...are the games you child plays approiate for his age...this just takes some good old fashioned parenting. thats it thats all.
I grew up on Mortal Kombat. Most of the kids I knew grew up on Mortal Kombat. I have yet to shoot a single person. The only reason kids and parents blame real-life violence on videogames is because they don't want the blame.
I wasn't a fanboy when Sega was around, and by god, I'm not one now.
Why can't we just fine the parents of kids who do crap like this? Send them to jail? How's that for incentive to make sure your kid doesn't end up a mess? Your kid goes on a spree and kills a bunch of people, then himself, you do time.
Why are we so interested in this country in telling people they can't do something just because someone else did something wrong? Why can't we have some sort of incentive for parents not to ignore or abuse their kids? We're dealing with symptoms instead of causes, which hurts people who don't deserve to be hurt and leaves the cause alone to fester.
[rambling rant over]
First off, this is old news considering that it was in EGM last month.
So, the other Wacko Jacko wants Columbine x10, which means everyday he wishes for 120 dead students and 10 dead teachers by an army of 20 gunmen. Talk about sick right there. But that must be OK with Jack considering that he had already graduated from ambulance chasing to hearse chasing and he goes from funeral to funeral to hit on the corpse.
Jack's 12-year-old son probably wishes he had been given up for adoption or that he was adopted(no offense to people that were adopted) since he probably gets beat up at school every day because of who his father is.
And if Jack has played GTA:San Andreas, shouldn't he have turned into a violent killer by now? Congratulations, Jack, you just defeated your own argument! And he also admitted to illegally copying the game, so that also makes him the world's dumbest son of a bitch by admitting he committed a crime!
== BearDogg-X ==
Why is it always the It's-not-our-fault's vs. the libertarians?
Direct away from face when opening.
Luckly I went to the game section to read this becasue it was not on the Slashdot homepage.
The notion that the console/game/rating system ect... are all in 'chaoots' seems to make me think that perhaps he working under a conspiracy theory. While I grant you that all the companies have a vested interest in selling more games, this whole 'dark shadowy underworld' of which he speaks is more a product of loose laws than the 'dark side of the force' infecting our youths.
I also love the way in which he casually assaults the ethics of the federal judges as a whole. While I realize this is most likely on purpose and an attempt for JT to show he isn't afraid, insulting the judges as a whole, becuase you don't like what they ruled, rather than reyling on hard evidence is not a wise move. Essentially the further I went down the interview I saw less and less quoting of facts and details, and more and more of evil plots filled with terrorism and brainwashing.
Did anybody else notice how strange Thompson's comments on statistics are? e.g.
"...a Gallop poll found 71 percent of all U.S teenage boys who played Vice City were twice as likely to have been engaged in an act of violence."
What? 71 percent were twice as likely? Is this some kind of maths problem?
And:
"Well, let's look at deaths in and around schools. In 2004, there were 48 in number. In 2003, there were 16. In 2002, there were 17. Yes, the death rate in which murderous actions have taken place has gone down, but there are other factors such as the shortening of ambulance response time, better medical techniques, and so forth."
I really don't think 3 years of statistics where the first two years are the same gives much of an idea of the trend. Look at say 20 years, so that we could at least compare the statistics for times before violent games were common. Violent games existed way before 2002.
Giles
A couple of years ago, when he was on Mike Reagan's radio program, I called in and ate his lunch on the air. His arguments consist of a series of one-liners. If he's giving a speech, it doesn't sound half bad. If his arguments are challenged, he can't support them.
He's a media whore, he's in it for the money; nothing more.
Whenever you see him on TV, whenever you hear him on the radio, whenever he's making a public appearance confront him. Expose him for what he is.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
But Thompson makes no such rational arguments. He doesn't even make arguments that can be evaluated at all--he just spouts of bunch of hyperbole and polemics. If I were to attempt to create a fictional character to lampoon people with a mindset like Helen Lovejoy, I could not think of anything more ridiculous than Thompson. The man is literally a walking parody of himself. I am certain that he will do more to hurt the causes he advocates than anything else.
English is easier said than done.
In the vast majority of cases of murder or maiming or other violent acts, the victim is usually known to be screaming out in pain, or anguish, or some other sort of emotion which is not portrayed in these types of games.
This stark contrast to reality is being ignored, and in the process we will see plenty of extra curbs to the choices that we make for ourselves.
In other jurisdictions, video games all fall under the corresponding censorship legislation, and as such is treated in just the same way as books, movies, magazines, etc. We have different classifications of movies, and we don't see the movie studios getting sued because of parents purchasing/hiring adult movies for their children. The same similar practise should be in place for video games.
I agree that there is some level of responsibility placed on the retailers to ensure compliance, but beyond that anyone can create/sell anything so long as it is legal. The burden of responsibility of consumption of the product still largely lies with the people making purchases.
HEEENNRRYYYYYYYYYY JENKINS!
...just settle it with a nice friendly game of soul calibre 2 ;p
oxymoron of the day - Xbox gamer
EGM: Does your 12-year-old son play videogames?
JT: Not anything above an E
So by his logic his own son is playing violent video games somewhere else.
Perhaps he'll turn into a homicidal maniac and kill his dad?
EGM: So, what's next on the agenda for you?
JT: [A lawsuit regarding] a multiple loss of life by a teenager who played Vice City.
This is a typical argument against games. Suppose it could be proved that the same teenager ate hamburgers. Are they going to sue McDonald's and Burger King?
There's no evidence, either experimental or logical, to imply that the violent game caused a violent behavior. The causation could well go in the other direction. Probably people who have a tendency to violent behavior for any reason prefer playing violent games.
There's a very different situation in the cigarette smoking relation to cancer that's often cited. Even before there was conclusive evidence that cigarette smoke causes cancer, there already existed a logical reason to believe the cause went from smoking to cancer. Smoking causes chemical alterations in the body, cancer is a result from chemical alterations in the body. It would be very unlikely that cancer in some way caused people to take up smoking.
To assume that playing violent games causes violent behavior, if based on correlation alone without further proof, is like assuming that beach towel sales in Argentina cause people in Norway to buy blankets. If you look at monthly sales figures you'll notice a strong correlation there.
Very balanced, great interviewer/interviewees, great questions, great answers.
In the end, I think I'm going to have to side with Jack Thompson, though. Not on the lawsuits, but on the limiting of sales to minors.
Comparing video game censorship to comic book censorship really hooked me into reading and got my blood all stirred up. I still see the negative effects of the Comics Code today, but at the end of the day, this isn't the comic book industry. With all the studios out there, I'd say it's more like the movie industry. As kids aren't allowed to see rated R/NC17 movies (nevermind that they do anyway), they shouldn't be allowed to play rated M titles (at the parents' discretion).
I'm no comics expert, but I think the reason the comics code was so detrimental to that industry was because the like, what, 2-3 major players decided to publish ONLY comics code approved stories? Yeah, that's going to stifle innovation in a hurry.
But unlike the comics industry, and more like the film industry, production isn't limited to 2-3 major players. The video games market has also grown to encompass a large portion of people that are over 18.
The sale of mature titles should be a burden carried by retailers. The raising of children, and their actions, should be the responsibility of their parents. Forcing retailers to check IDs for mature titles only aids parents in their duty.
This entire discussion is full of people telling how sane they are, and that they are sad when they kill animals, and so on and so forth.
We understand that you don't have violent tendencies, and that you played Mortal Kombat when you were a teenager. That has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT.
People generally agree that young children should not be exposed to violent media. The question that is being put to you is not, are video games making people kill, but rather, do we really want young children to be exposed to this violent media. Whether we feel it desensitizes youths, causes disturbed childred who have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality to kill, or simply because we don't want our kids swearing, how will we keep material meant for adults in the hands of adults.
So answer the question at hand:
Will we use legislation, education, or some other method to make sure children are not exposed to video games which are inappropriate for them?
...that games prevent vioence by providing a sandbox to act out any violent tendencies. I'll use myself as an example - when I was younger and didn't have access to videogames - I used to beat the everloving snot out of my classmates. I was a violent child and got into fistfights almost every other day. I was good at it too.
This continued until probably about sixth grade. What happened in sixth grade? I got a gameboy. Instead of pummeling other students, I played tetris. I still got into the occasional fight but it wasn't as bad. Then something else happened - I started playing Mortal Kombat at a video store near my dad's apartment. I havent gotten into a fist fight in years.
leeerrrrrrrooooooyyyyy jenkinnnnnnnnsss!!!!!!!!!111
Does anyone here really believe that GTA can have no negative impact on a 13yo? Sorry, I just can't buy that. He may not go out on a killing spree, but the game certainly equates violence with humor, rewards mysoginistic behavior, and enforces racial stereotyping. Is it that hard to imagine an impressionable mind getting the wrong ideas from this game?
I don't think Jack Thompson is approaching the issue in the right way, and I don't think he'll be successful. But I do think enforcing ratings at stores is important, and that it is not done properly right now. Additionally, some inappropriate games are marketed to kids. This should stop. If it doesn't, people like Jack Thompson will succeed.
FWIW, I find it embarrassing as a game developer that one of the most innovative game designs in the past few years was wrapped in content matter that is frankly offensive to most people.
Will we use legislation, education, or some other method to make sure children are not exposed to video games which are inappropriate for them?
I'll take 'some other method'. I'd like to call it parenting. It's a radical concept: you actually watch what your child does, monitor what they watch, read, etc, and when they try to get something you do not feel is appropriate for them, you tell them no, and take it away.
At no point in this process does the government, the industry, or anyone aside from myself responsible for how my child grows up. Just me.
Just FRIGHTENING, isn't it?
"If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
It makes me so angry when govenments censor games.
At 35 I can marry, have weird sex (if I choose), have kids, get into debt, take mind altering alcohol, pay taxes, watch contact sport (if i choose), watch horror films, read books and look at all manner of art.
I can make decisions, and am held resposible for my actions, it is assumed I know right from wrong.
Yet, the Australian government thinks I need my computer games censored.
The classification guidelines are supposed to allow me to make an informed choice, not to remove choice.
The situation sucks, I just hope it gets better as gamers get older.
Some links to explore.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/06/06/1117910
http://www.oflc.gov.au/content.html?n=166&p=119
A quick Google search leads us to the widely reported data: this is actually "school-related deaths", and it includes suicides. First problem. But the second and biggest problem, highlighted prominently in "How to Lie with Statistics", is what happened in the two years before those three: 33 and 31 deaths, respectively.
So instead of the alarming trend of 17, 16, 48, we have the highly varying trend of 33, 31, 17, 16, 49 (the Web site I'm quoting gives a different number). That last number is certainly worrisome, but hardly proof by itself. Especially when you look at this year's count of 37. So what we have is a dip and a blip, not a trend. Of course, Thompson will probably take credit for the latest drop.
The most striking feature of the article, IMHO, is a contrast between fairly reasonable (though still flawed) statements from Jenkins and obviously bogus statistics, personal attacks and broken logic from Thompson.
;-)
I support enforceable game ratings, and there are valid reasons for them - for example, while parenting matters the most, there needs to be responsibility from businesses providing content, whether it is movie theatres or game sellers, etc. But I disagree with almost everything that Thompson says. Whoever had set it up had to know that this won't be an unbiased discussion, because it is not a reasonable debate when there is an extremist on one side. Makes one wonder who benefits from this one - hard to find a better ad for game industry supporters