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.
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.
Why is it always the It's-not-our-fault's vs. the libertarians?
Direct away from face when opening.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.