Slashdot Mirror


Connecticut Group Wants Your Violent Videogames — To Destroy Them

DavidGilbert99 writes with this excerpt from IB Times: "The Sandy Hook shooting once again raised the debate about how much power violent videogames wield over teenagers. Following proclamations from the National Rifle Association and the establishment of a study by the National Academy of Sciences to investigate the psychological effects of violent games on children, a group in Connecticut is now having its say Southington, a town 30 miles from where the shooting took place, is offering gift tokens in exchange for violent videogames, as well as other violent media such as DVDs or videos. The group, called SouthingtonSOS, said in a statement: 'There is ample evidence that violent video games, along with violent media of all kinds, including TV and movies portraying story after story showing a continuous stream of violence and killing, has contributed to increasing aggressiveness, fear, anxiety and is desensitizing our children to acts of violence including bullying.'" And Yes, they plan to destroy the traded-in games. (Note: Beware the obnoxious auto-playing video ad with sound; adjust volume accordingly.)

5 of 449 comments (clear)

  1. Give them a bit of credit .... by pollarda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After all, they are asking people to voluntarily turn in their video games which people are free to do -- or not. This stands in stark contrast to those who would ban violent video games entirely and who would most likely support video game confiscation and for those who really want to play violent video games, background checks and registration. By requiring registration, it ensures that some newspaper will publish a map as to who owns violent video games or not so that violent video game owner's friends and neighbors may demonize them.

    Meanwhile, I'll burn a stack of CD's that I can turn in for a stack of coupons.

    1. Re:Give them a bit of credit .... by dcollins117 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I understand the impulse to "do something" in response to the Sandy Hook shootings, I'm bewildered that this is the issue they've decided to pursue. It's quite simply a misdirected effort that will have absolutely no effect to curtail further mass shootings.

    2. Re:Give them a bit of credit .... by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While initially (and likely) harmless, such events echo a dark past. The US has a long history of 'voluntary' destruction of scapegoat media which, if they latch on to a big enough moral panic, end up exerting significant social pressure on people to 'volunteer'. They also tend to have the problem of parents (or other quasi authority figures lik significant others) getting caught up in the hysteria and destroying their children/partner's media for them. They can actually have a pretty corrosive force.

      And of course there is the effigy element of it. Even if other locals do not give up their media, knowing that a group is going around collecting for destruction something you consider important can be a bit unnerving... esp if they start using actual bonfires.

      Thus, stuff like this in isolation seems harmless, but can tie in to a larger pattern or even become bigger themselves.

  2. Re:Better price than gamestop? by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then you run into the same problem as people trading in broken or useless guns to the gun buyback:

    By turning in your property, you effectively endorse their political cause. They get to say that "X number of people turned in this filth to get it off of our streets and out of our schools!". Personally, I'm not willing to become part of their cause and make that value of X going higher at any cost.

    If you actually do find their message convincing then by all means turn in your games.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  3. Re:Don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just don't get this obsession. There are always a few nuts. The rest of us are fairly well-adjusted.

    THIS. A thousand times.

    Look -- I think the gun control crowd basically has one legitimate point that is nearly triviailly weighed against. My bias declared up front.

    But there's been school shootings for at least four centuries. Their frequency is likely easily plotted out with some basic statistical physics or similar applications. The "epidemic" is so insubstantial as to be boring to everyone but CDC types with a moral obligation to treat it as such.

    But I don't even need science for this, just memory and a bit of knowledge of history.

    Before I was born there were witch trials, pogroms, purges, mccarthyism.... and all of these were in reaction to *shit happening* (although not necessarily caused by the victims of these activities)

    In my relatively short lifetime there's been panic over D&D/satanism, rock & rap music (remember tipper gore?), trenchcoats (after columbine), pedos, terrorism, and I would claim drug use. Every five years or so we need a new internal societal threat.

    These might all have a legit correlation with some form of violence. I really don't know (or care -- if they are or aren't correlated is immaterial to me, they mostly fall under the guise of the 0th freedom of thought).

    But people want to find a way to understand bad things happening. They will latch on and clasp desperately to God, to an outlier, to anything to explain the 'senseless' violence they see rather than admit we are big dangerous apes with a thin veneer of civilization.

    To point out anything not them that they can collectively engage in risk-free destruction of in part of the big orgy of lynchmobbery -- ideally through the tyranny of the majority driven through by the rifles of the government and their easy taxy dollars. Because this is how civilized white people destroy things -- with a pen stroke instead of a rioting mob.

    And that is really all that well-adjusted means.

    BRB, gonnna watch some CNN and Fox....