# Blaming music/video games/tv for violence



## violadude

I was on youtube and came across this excerpt from the Michael Moore documentary "Bowling for Columbine." If anyone doesn't know, Columbine is referring to a famous school shooting that happened over here in the U.S. After it happened many people blamed TV, video games and music, specifically the music of musician, Marilyn Manson.

This is an interview with Manson about how he feels about everyone blaming him. Watch it and then tell me what you think. Do you think the media is accurate in blaming musicians like Marilyn Manson, TV shows and video games? Or do you think they're just blindly pointing fingers and whatever they can because they are too quick to blame someone? Or maybe you think something else. Share your thoughts.

Warning: Video contains explicit language.


----------



## graaf

Media is the first to make money on sensational representation of crime, to the point where you have to ask your self do they actually, indirectly at least, glorify it, by simply giving it so much media coverage. Bowling for Columbine, the film that you mentioned, shows how in a certain period, when murder rate went down 20%, media increased crime reporting by 600%. Virginia Tech killer sent his tapes to NBC before he started shooting - that sends a clear message that one of the things he expected is his 5 minutes of fame.

People don't go around killing people because they saw it in a video game or a movie. People do desperate things when they are, obviously, desperate - poor, uneducated and disadvanteged in every concieveable way to the point that there's no way for them to improve their condition. On every kid who was stupid enough to immitate video game or a movie, there are thousands of those who are desperate enough to do violent crime. But it's easier to blame some MTV clown, than it is to pay attention to real problems.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Before rap and video games and Manson, they said Dungeons & Dragons was a bad influence. Before that, they said jazz was bad. Before that, ... etc.


----------



## graaf

regressivetransphobe said:


> Before rap and video games and Manson, they said Dungeons & Dragons was a bad influence. Before that, they said jazz was bad. Before that, ... etc.


Earliest example I can think of is Socrates - he was charged for "_corrupting the youth_ and impiety".


----------



## Fsharpmajor

When people say that video games cause violent behaviour, I just want to strangle them.


----------



## Ukko

graaf said:


> Earliest example I can think of is Socrates - he was charged for "_corrupting the youth_ and impiety".


Well, he had a lot of gods not to like.


----------



## Klavierspieler

I wouldn't say video games _cause_ violence. However, I would say that they are a definite factor.

When kids spend a large portion of their day viciously murdering each other, they will tend, even if only subconsciously, to think it isn't such a big deal.


----------



## Weston

I don't like Manson's music or his attitude, but I have to say he comes across far more thoughtful and intelligent in this video than the rabid far right and the far left too. I'm aware that Michael Moore can use the same editing techniques as Fox News however, so I take it all with a grain of salt.

For my part, it is inconceivable to blame entertainment for violence. Morality aside, from a business perspective they would lose a lot of their buying public if their fans committed murder and suicide. And it can't be exposure alone that causes this behavior. I have been exposed my entire life to TV shows with guns and killing, and I have never in my life desired pick up a firearm -- nor have I ever touched one. Yet I can play violent video games, read violent novels and watch violent movies with impunity. The fact that some people want something to blame is a strong indication of the ignorance and superstitions of our culture. As George Carlin said, "we want to get rid of the toy guns -- and keep the real ones!"


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

First of all... as an artist I am adamantly against censorship... but at the same time, I recognize that artists, advertisers, and the media have a certain responsibility which they have long ignored.

I would suggest that one consider the fact that corporations and politicians spend billions and billions of dollars upon advertising. Why? The obvious answer is because it is effective. It is worth the expenditure because it impacts human behavior. No company in their right mind is going to continue to invest millions of dollars upon TV and radio and internet ads if they cannot see a clear increase in sales (ie. result in human behavior).

Yet at the same time... the very same media that are selling ads to large corporations by touting how effective these are in effecting consumer behavior would have us believe that while the 30-second ad has such great impact, the hours spent watching violent films and video games have absolutely no impact at all. This makes absolutely no sense at all. There is a disconnect in logic and reason in such arguments... or a naivete and/or denial.

Now certainly we know that the majority of the adult audience are able to separate reality from fiction enough so that we are not likely to go out an attempt to rob a bank or kill somebody after having spent hours watching Kill Bill or playing Grand Theft Auto. The individual who cannot differentiate reality from fiction... or the borderline personality who becomes obsessed with what he or she sees in the media and is led to a violent act must be held personally accountable. Still I suspect, considering the ability of the arts to impact human emotion, that all of us are impacted by what we see, read, and watch.

The social/literary/cultural critic, Roger Shattuck, in his book _Forbidden Knowledge_, explored the question as to whether there is indeed types of knowledge that we would do well to avoid. He looked at the case of serial killers and found a great many had an obsession for pornography... not merely for the sort of pin-up pornography as epitomized by Playboy or Vargas, but rather for pornography which blatantly dehumanized women (or children) and suggested elements of violence.

Personally, I believe that the impact of the media and the limitations of free speech is something that we should be seriously exploring and debating. I feel that not only has the media grown far too influential upon the lives of individuals... and especially children... but it has become the dominating voice of our political discourse and the source of the divisive extremism that currently dominates most political debate.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

For my part, it is inconceivable to blame entertainment for violence. Morality aside, from a business perspective they would lose a lot of their buying public if their fans committed murder and suicide. And it can't be exposure alone that causes this behavior. I have been exposed my entire life to TV shows with guns and killing, and I have never in my life desired pick up a firearm -- nor have I ever touched one. Yet I can play violent video games, read violent novels and watch violent movies with impunity. The fact that some people want something to blame is a strong indication of the ignorance and superstitions of our culture. As George Carlin said, "we want to get rid of the toy guns -- and keep the real ones!"

The fact that you or and the majority of other individuals have not gone out and killed someone or even desired to do so proves nothing. I may watch 1000 ads for Ford pick-up trucks without ever wanting to buy one... but clearly the ads are effective in changing human consumer behavior to a great enough degree that Ford continues to invest in them. We may even look at the impact of real horror. Of the soldiers who returned from Vietnam or Iraq the vast majority will go back to life as usual without ever once desiring to go out and shoot up a McDonald's somewhere. But we wouldn't think to suggest that what they have experienced had no impact upon them. The impact of art and the media is subtle and quite likely we cannot predict how any single individual will respond... but there is a response and to suggest otherwise is either ignorant or naive.


----------



## Polednice

I don't think gaming or music affects us even subconsciously in this manner. Our fundamental instincts are far too strong to be overruled by unrealistic violence on a screen, or in lyrics - if someone _is_ morally messed up, then it is far more likely to be caused be a morally skewed, possibly abusive upbringing.

This discussion makes me think of two things I saw on TV:

1) After one of these mass school shootings, I can't remember which one, a well-qualified psychologist was invited onto one or more news programmes to discuss the possible reasons why a child would commit such an act. After he had dutifully given his responses, he then said that _the most important thing_ is for news outlets to actually _stop_ sensationalising, _stop_ covering these stories, _stop_ endlessly repeating them, because it _will_ incite other potential murderers to do the same. He was, of course, completely ignored. As ever, no one listens to the people most qualified to comment (this being, I think, the main reason why society is messed up. Our treasurers don't listen to economists; our education secretaries don't listen to professors; our health secretaries don't listen to doctors _etc. etc._).

2) There was a convincing episode of Penn & Teller: Bull**** which debunked these warped notions that surround gaming. Amongst a lot of other demonstrations and arguments, there was one boy who was obsessed with playing first-person shooters - it was all he did when he got home from school - but he had never held a real gun before. So, he was taken to a rifle range just to try it out, and he hated it. It scared the **** out of him, and he just cried into his mothers arms. Even after all the time he spent playing those games, they did _not_ accustom him in any way to the use of guns, let alone actual violence.

Yet again, this is just a bunch of right-wing nuts forcing their own morality and preconceived ideas on other people. Those who commit murders in the name of religion aren't doing it because of _real_ religion - no, _our_ morally oppressive, sexually repressive religion is the _real_ one - but kids who say nothing of music or games when lashing out violently against their upbringing and surrounding culture are definitely doing it because of the music and games. Ludicrous.

P.S. From the perspective of a 21-year-old who had a fairly solitary adolescence, largely spent playing video games in which the object is to KILL, KILL, KILL, I can tell you that I am and have always been a giant sissy; one who is so empathetic that I cry sometimes when I watch the news! _If_ it is _ever_ the case that an album or game pushes someone over the edge, it is only because that person has been made vulnerable through years of horrible interaction with peers and/or parents.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I don't think gaming or music affects us even subconsciously in this manner.

How do you explain the disconnect in logic between the notion that media can affect human behavior in the terms of advertising and consumer buying and the ability of art to affect us in a positive, uplifting manner... and the notion that when we look at undesirable behaviors, whether it be violence or our current divisive political discourse, suddenly the media and the arts have no impact whatsoever? We can't have it both ways.

There was a convincing episode of Penn & Teller: Bull**** which debunked these warped notions that surround gaming. Amongst a lot of other demonstrations and arguments, there was one boy who was obsessed with playing first-person shooters - it was all he did when he got home from school - but he had never held a real gun before. So, he was taken to a rifle range just to try it out, and he hated it. It scared the **** out of him, and he just cried into his mothers arms. Even after all the time he spent playing those games, they did not accustom him in any way to the use of guns, let alone actual violence.

Anecdotes concerning individuals prove nothing. The vast majority will not go out on a killing spree after playing violent video games, nor will the vast majority rush out to Taco Bell after seeing an ad calling you to "make a run for the border"... but they will influence a decided minority.


----------



## Polednice

StlukesguildOhio said:


> How do you explain the disconnect in logic between the notion that media can affect human behavior in the terms of advertising and consumer buying and the ability of art to affect us in a positive, uplifting manner... and the notion that when we look at undesirable behaviors, whether it be violence or our current divisive political discourse, suddenly the media and the arts have no impact whatsoever? We can't have it both ways.


There are two things here. First, with regards to art affecting us in a positive manner, where is the disconnect here? Similarly, violence affects us in a negative manner. In neither case does this mean we try to replicate what we see.

Second, also with regards to this:



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Anecdotes concerning individuals prove nothing. The vast majority will not go out on a killing spree after playing violent video games, nor will the vast majority rush out to Taco Bell after seeing an ad calling you to "make a run for the border"... but they will influence a decided minority.


It's not because the games or the adverts have a very slight hit rate, it's because only a select number of people are susceptible to the games and the adverts. We should be questioning where that susceptibility comes from, not damning otherwise-harmless things that affect a small minority for external reasons.


----------



## graaf

I wonder whether people who argue that games have strong influence on behaviour ever played any games? I suspect that people prone to judge video games have very limited experience with games. Of course, they might say that we don't realize how it has affected us, but I'd say that I know a few bad influences of games, and none of them is violence. It is short attention span and loss of concentration due to repetitive activities. It is carpal tunnel syndrome, due to pressing the same button million times. It is loss of social activities due to isolation (but it can also be enhancing to social life if one play with friends and so on). It is losing shape, becoming overweight, damaging eyesight, spine and what not. It is many things. But it is not going outside, beating the ****** out of someone, robbing banks and/or killing people.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I know a few bad influences of games, and none of them is violence. It is short attention span and loss of concentration due to repetitive activities.

That is certainly one side effect of video games, TV, and the media as a whole. Educators struggle with this daily while administrators (utilizing their educational double-speak worthy of Orwell) call for teachers to "make the lessons engaging" ie. "entertain the little urchins"... and we all know how "entertaining" 18th century history and algebra is to the 14 year old who has just started to notice the opposite sex.

It is loss of social activities due to isolation (but it can also be enhancing to social life if one play with friends and so on). It is losing shape, becoming overweight, damaging eyesight, spine and what not.

Indeed!

It is many things. But it is not going outside, beating the ****** out of someone, robbing banks and/or killing people.

Yet I can play the anecdote card as well as any and tell you that I cannot count the number of times I've had a student whack another with a folding chair (because he saw it on TV on one of the wrestling shows... but didn't realize that their chairs are props made to break easily and not hurt the opponent) while the other students gathered 'round and began to chant "Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!" But of course... they didn't get any of that from the media.


----------



## graaf

> I've had a student whack another with a folding chair (because he saw it on TV on one of the wrestling shows... but didn't realize that their chairs are props made to break easily and not hurt the opponent) while the other students gathered 'round and began to chant "Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!" But of course... they didn't get any of that from the media.


We had that here before we knew there is such a thing as a (soap opera) wrestling - no foreign TV for us back then.

The fact that they don't know that wrestling is staged points out that they are very, very young - at that age kids usually do fight recklessly - something that people who grew up without "wrestle mania" can confirm. But people forget that there was a world before TV and PC, and it wasn't all that much different with respect to violence. Or maybe there was more of it - beating a wife was more common than kissing her, same with kids, or as Arabs would say: "Beat your wife regularly; even if you don't know why, she will." They must have seen Raging Bull, or something...


----------



## presto

I despair at the kind of entertainment the vast majority of young males enjoy.
Guns, explosions, killing, Destruction, speeding vehicles the whole computer game culture is totally sick in my view.
It’s got to have some sort of averse influence on the sub-conscious, why are there millions spent on on-screen advertising if that wasn’t the case!
Why has it got like this? Surly we should be encouraging our youth is be creative and enjoy beautiful positive things in life!


----------



## Polednice

Violence is so popular because it's so natural and human...


----------



## Almaviva

Both the violent videogames and the the violent behaviors are symptoms of the same violent culture. I don't think that the videogames cause violence... They're are symptoms of a violent society. The causes are elsewhere. It's a correlation, not a causal relationship.

It is conceivable that some fragile or psychotic individuals might be influenced this way... but then, they might be influenced by any number of other factors.

It's the exclusion, the solitude, the pariah status, and the easy access to guns that are behind these extreme acts... not a videogame.

If such videogames sell, it's because there is a demand for them.

We'd be better off addressing the demand rather than the offer.

This all reminds me of a friend of mine who banned all sorts of toy guns from her house and forbid her boy to play with toy guns. Well, the boy picked up sticks on the ground and played with them, pretending that they were guns.

So it's not by limiting access to games that we curb violence. The sociological causes are way more complex than a game.

On the other hand, violent crime dropped an additional 13% this year in the United States (countering some recent statements by non-Americans that we don't do anything about our problems with violence).


----------



## starthrower

When bad things happen, some people look for scapegoats. Remember the two boys who shot themselves after listening to Judas Priest records? The band had a lawsuit on their hands. It's probably a bit more complicated than that.

I'd say the most deadly result of kids spending too much time watching the tube and playing video games is rampant obesity.
The person who snaps and shoots people is one in ten million. Junk food combined with the sedentary lifestyle is far more
deadly. Poverty and drug abuse accounts for most of the violent youth activity.


----------



## sabrina

I think people should not be aloud to have any guns. Part of the killings in Canada, are done with guns bought in US.
This is so wrong. But the damage was done. I don't know how could all the guns could be recuperated, anyway. People do stupid things out of desperation or wrong schizoid thought.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Here, I got an idea to challenge you all.

If it's somehow wrong to blame Music/Art/TV/Video Games in general for being a bad influence on people... do we have a right to ever say it has a _good_ influence? Why shouldn't we, who say that learning an instrument helps kids think critically, or that Classical Music helps you focus, also be able to say Rap and Heavy Metal promote negative attitudes towards life? Think about it. Can an art form be _only_ good? Can it _only_ help society? What if art actually does _absolutely no effect_ on people? There can be no one-sided view of such creations of man. Art has the power to build up _and_ tear down. And it's determined by how the human soul absorbs, interprets, and reacts to it.


----------



## starthrower

sabrina said:


> I think people should not be aloud to have any guns. Part of the killings in Canada, are done with guns bought in US.
> This is so wrong. But the damage was done. I don't know how could all the guns could be recuperated, anyway. People do stupid things out of desperation or wrong schizoid thought.


Prohibition will never work. Besides, I don't want my government making guns illegal. The result being only criminals will have guns.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Prohibition will never work. Besides, I don't want my government making guns illegal. The result being only criminals will have guns.

Sounds like a true supporter of the NRA.


----------



## starthrower

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Prohibition will never work. Besides, I don't want my government making guns illegal. The result being only criminals will have guns.
> 
> Sounds like a true supporter of the NRA.


No, I don't belong to any conservative club, and I rarely vote for republicans. But seriously, do you really think outlawing guns is going stop violence?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

The video game made me do it.
The devil made me do it.
My mother-in-law made me do it.
Voices in my head made me do it.

Or in the case with HarpsichordConcerto: "John Cage made me do it".


----------



## Philip

sabrina said:


> I think people should not be aloud to have any guns. Part of the killings in Canada, are done with guns bought in US.
> This is so wrong. But the damage was done. I don't know how could all the guns could be recuperated, anyway. People do stupid things out of desperation or wrong schizoid thought.


obviously you've never fired a weapon in your life


----------



## Sid James

I watched _Bowling for Columbine _when it was playing here at the movies, & my friends and I thought that the Marylin Manson interview was the best part of the film (in terms of what he said making sense), and also how the late Charlton Heston (then president of the American gun lobby) walked out on his interview with Mike Moore (that spoke to his attitude more than anything he said, that's what I remember about that scene the most).

Anyway, in terms of equating the supposed/possible bad influence of video games or heavy metal or whatever with the good influence of advertising, it's not a good comparison. It's a natural thing to go to the shop and buy things, people have always done that. Advertising is just making us narrow down our choice of what to buy, it's a very specific message. It's about the product, or things attached to it (eg. brand name or celebrity, etc.). So advertising is directly connected to shopping. But connecting video games with "real" violence is much more tenuous, imo. Video games are just fantasy, "real" violence is not.

I'm more worried about things like binge drinking here in Australia and violence connected to that. Alcohol is the cause of heaps of things here. Every weekend on the radio I hear reports of people getting their jaw broken or even bashed to death due to too much consumption/abuse of alcohol, esp. by our youth. I think it's just sensationalism to talk about/focus on certain types of crime which are easier to hype up - eg. the killings on USA campuses. More disturbing to me is what goes on in the very suburbs that I frequent to visit friends etc., and then hearing on the radio that someone has been killed in a pub brawl or party that went wrong there, etc. This is not related to video games, unless you want to talk bullsh*t, this is related to things like alcohol (but of course politicians of all shades, esp. conservative, will not touch this issue, they are in bed with the big concerns, incl. the alcohol industry)...


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Why shouldn't we, who say that learning an instrument helps kids think critically, or that Classical Music helps you focus, also be able to say Rap and Heavy Metal promote negative attitudes towards life?


"All I want is peace and love
On this planet
Ain't that how God planned it?"
- Public Enemy, _Fear of a Black Planet_

"Love isn't money, it's not something you buy
So let me fill myself with tears you cry, why?
Time is a never ending journey
Love is a never ending smile"
- Black Sabbath, _Wishing Well_

Some really negative, scary stuff right here! Makes me wanna light some black candles and buy some guns.


----------



## Sid James

^^ Yeah, easier to blame rap or heavy metal musicians or makers of video games, etc. than things like alcohol here in Oz & guns in the USA which really contribute to violence big time. Is this scapegoating, by any chance?...


----------



## Polednice

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Here, I got an idea to challenge you all.
> 
> If it's somehow wrong to blame Music/Art/TV/Video Games in general for being a bad influence on people... do we have a right to ever say it has a _good_ influence? Why shouldn't we, who say that learning an instrument helps kids think critically, or that Classical Music helps you focus, also be able to say Rap and Heavy Metal promote negative attitudes towards life? Think about it. Can an art form be _only_ good? Can it _only_ help society? What if art actually does _absolutely no effect_ on people? There can be no one-sided view of such creations of man. Art has the power to build up _and_ tear down. And it's determined by how the human soul absorbs, interprets, and reacts to it.


Ignoring the reference to 'souls', this conflates and confuses a lot of different things that need to be pulled apart. It's perfectly fine to say music/art/tv/video games all have influences on people, but _there are different types of influences_.

Instruments helping other learning skills is analogous to SpongeBob affecting concentration span.
Upbeat music making us feel joy is analogous to violent TV dramas making us feel queasy and uneasy.
Inspirational art that makes us want to do something constructive is analogous to easy entertainment games making us want to sit and veg out for a day.

Art making us feel good = video games making us kill? I don't think so. If art made people suddenly devote their lives to charitable work, then I might give your position a second thought. But what you're saying is that because good things can make us _feel_ good things, then bad things can make us _do_ bad things.


----------



## Ravellian

As somebody who has been fairly obsessed with video games for the better part of 20 years (violent and non-violent), I feel like I can make a few points here.

1) As an overall comment affecting the playing of all video games: We gamers _know_ that the video game world is not reality. That's what makes it so much fun. We can put ourselves in these simulated environments where our consequences don't matter and we can do whatever we want, at least within the technical restrictions of the game. For an adult, then, video games should just be a fun "escape." It lets us experience the consequences of things we would never want or be able to do in real life. As far as children are concerned, video games help them learn the consequences for evil actions through simulated experience, provided of course they appropriately punish the player for doing evil things. (some don't, more on that in a bit)

2) Many, many video games feature blood and gore. But _most_ of the time, whether it's rated E, T, or M, you're shooting/chopping up the bad guys: criminals, zombies, monsters, undead, etc. Most (nearly all, in fact) games penalize you for killing innocents. Most games do not allow you to make 'moral' decisions, you have to progress in a certain linear path to kill all the bad guys and beat the game.

3) As I said above, most video games, regardless of rating, either [a] don't allow the player to do evil things (you fail the mission, game over, etc) or * severely punish the player for doing evil things (sending the police/guards after you, losing experience points, etc). I think that this sends a good message to kids, but the message isn't some "violence is wrong" nonsense, the message is the more substantial "doing bad things is wrong." And I don't see a problem with that.

4) However, I admit that there are a few games that I feel don't properly penalize the player for doing evil things, and I would not let my kids, or any immature person, play them. Grand Theft Auto IV is one. In that game, you can easily get into a car and mow down 20-30 random innocent people before the cops show up, and even then they're pretty easy to avoid. Plus, even if you get caught, you can just bribe the cops and get right back out on the streets again. But this allowance for unwarranted violence is pretty rare in a video game.*


----------



## Polednice

Ravellian said:


> 4) However, I admit that there are a _few_ games that I feel don't properly penalize the player for doing evil things, and I would not let my kids, or any immature person, play them. Grand Theft Auto IV is one. In that game, you can easily get into a car and mow down 20-30 random innocent people before the cops show up, and even then they're pretty easy to avoid. Plus, even if you get caught, you can just bribe the cops and get right back out on the streets again. But this allowance for unwarranted violence is pretty rare in a video game.


Even with an extreme example like that, I don't think the game would affect a young person's sense of right and wrong. I played all the GTA games from early adolescence to late teens, and, the discs lying around, my little brother (with the consent of my parents despite the recommended age) has been playing them - he's just turned 8. _Even now_, at this young age, he knows that killing all the innocent people in the game is wrong, _that's_ what makes it extra fun! Because he feels like he's doing something taboo, which little kids love.

There is such a huge, huge, huge chasm between pushing some buttons on a controller to watch an unrealistic figure run someone down, and being in a physical car - a metal block many times the size of your own body - staring out a large glass screen at a splatter of blood and guts in a real-life hit and run. These things are so far apart that the former cannot lead to the latter.


----------



## graaf

Polednice said:


> There is such a huge, huge, huge chasm between pushing some buttons on a controller to watch an unrealistic figure run someone down, and being in a physical car - a metal block many times the size of your own body - staring out a large glass screen at a splatter of blood and guts in a real-life hit and run. These things are so far apart that the former cannot lead to the latter.


Which is more, players see games as unrealistic to the point that they dismissed video games which would make them more realistic by releasing actual smell! Prototypes were made, "smell-devices" connected, tested, so players would go to a room full of, lets say, chemical weaponry, and the device would release some chemical odour, or when you are at the gas station, smell of gasoline would appear, etc. ScentScape is one of the companies making these devices and they are having a hard time selling them. Because no one wants to smell a gunpowder every time he shoots a gun, nor he wants to smell cigar smoke every time his hero enters a bar - in a word, they don't want anything realistic unless it is about graphics - that's pretty much how far realism goes with video games.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Guys, I was wrong. I was playing Castlevania the other day, and now I'm a creature of the night, an eternal vampire. You may send me prayers but they will be in vain, for my heart now belongs to Satan.


----------



## Sid James

Polednice said:


> ...Art making us feel good = video games making us kill? I don't think so. If art made people suddenly devote their lives to charitable work, then I might give your position a second thought. But what you're saying is that because good things can make us _feel_ good things, then bad things can make us _do_ bad things.


I agree with the gist of what you're saying, Polednice, esp. the quote above. One must not forget that the soundtrack to what was going on in the concentration camps during WW2 was classical music. At Theresienstadt holding camp in Czechoslovakia, there was even an orchestra made up of the inmates. Beautiful music was all around these places, yet they were places of death. Hitler loved classical music, so did Stalin. It's funny how Khruschev, a more "human" and moderate Soviet leader (he had his faults, was no angel, but was clearly better than Stalin), didn't like classical music or any of the arts. He was a total ignoramus in that regard & would have probably admitted it. But he made reforms that aimed to improve the lives of those he governed (eg. put food on the table among other things), he was a dictator, but a more benevolent and even-keeled one than Stalin.

So what I'm saying is that one could listen to heavy metal or play video games or classical music or read Milton or whatever & turn out a certain way - good, bad, ugly, fair/middling, whatever. I'm not a fan of novels like _American Psycho _that "sex up" violence, but I think banning them is going too far. That's why we have things that are restricted to over 18's, etc.



regressivetransphobe said:


> Guys, I was wrong. I was playing Castlevania the other day, and now I'm a creature of the night, an eternal vampire. You may send me prayers but they will be in vain, for my heart now belongs to Satan.


& I just listened to Wagner & I think my heart now belongs to Hitler, I feel very much like invading Poland now :lol:...


----------



## Polednice

The thought just struck me as well: if children who play violent video games who then fall down in tears at the sight of a real gun are useless anecdotal evidences, and if the huge mass of children, teenagers and adults who play games but have never done a single criminal thing in their life are useless anecdotal evidences, then what _exactly_ is an anomalous young murderer who _may_ have happened to play video games?


----------



## starthrower

I have to laugh at Joe Lieberman's comment in that video montage. Rock music is fairly harmless on society at large compared to the activities of politicians cutting their slimy deals while they protect polluters, start wars, support dictators, etc. I find this a lot sicker than Marilyn Manson's music. 

I don't really expect high journalistic standards from commercial infotainment, fake news networks.


----------



## graaf

Sid James said:


> I'm not a fan of novels like _American Psycho _that "sex up" violence, but I think banning them is going too far. That's why we have things that are restricted to over 18's, etc.


Banning books can make them more popular.

Soon after printing press was invented, people started printing much more than copies of Bible. In order to make the most money out of their "publishing business", they needed to get an idea of what is going to be in demand. So they checked _Index Librorum Prohibitorum_ and started printing books on the list. Needless to say, those were selling like hotcakes.

Two things are interesting to note: 1) that was one of the first market researches, 2) Vatican abolished _Index Librorum Prohibitorum_ as late as 1966!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I don't think anyone has suggested that we should blame video games, or films, or music for the anti-social or violent behavior of individuals. Obviously, the individual needs to be held responsible for his or her actions. The question of influence is much more complex and subtle. The TV ad didn't cause me to rush out to Taco Bell... but it may have planted the seed. Again, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot recognize that advertising has a clear impact upon behavior while suggesting that films, videos, books... art of any sort... has absolutely no impact whatsoever. Most of us will fully admit to the positive impact that the experience of the arts can have. We cannot accept this without also recognizing the possible negative impact. To do so is illogical and naive... or simply a form of denial: "I like this. It hasn't had any negative impact upon me (that I can discern or admit to), thus it shouldn't possibly have a negative impact upon anyone else. 

It has been repeatedly suggested that surely everyone can discern "reality" from fantasy? Is this really true? How then do we account for the fact that as recently as several months ago at the time of Donald trump's aborted run for the Presidency a poll of Americans found that fully 25% believed that Obama was not born in the US and another 10-15% had doubts? How is it that we repeatedly come across individuals posting extremist fantasies on internet forums concerning every aspect of politics... "fantasies" that they read in the news or on the internet or overheard on Rush Limbaugh and were unable to look at objectively? 

In many ways, this is the most serious aspect our the decline in our education system. Our freedoms depend upon the ability to think critically... to question the source and their intentions. The media spend more and more time and effort aiming their messages at children who are in many ways the most vulnerable... the least able to discern fact from fiction... reality from fantasy. 

Once again, I am not at all in support of censorship... but I do question the responsibilities of the media. I question focusing upon the sensational and the divisive. I question marketing to children. I question the naive notion that the media has no impact whatsoever upon our behavior. I recognize that historically when the media in the past has been unwilling to take their responsibilities seriously or to even consider questions as to their negative impact, we end up getting censorship from outside that is often far worse than what any rational person had envisioned.


----------



## Sid James

^^ What you're saying re Trump & Obama reminds me of the Dreyfus affair, in c19th France. The French army officer was accused of treason, but it was basically a matter of anti-Semitism (he was Jewish). I think he served time in jail but was let out after his name was finally cleared. So this kind of warping of the truth, the issue of fact vs. fiction has been around for a long time.

In terms of children today & young adults, I am worried about them. Esp. in terms of binge drinking & the violence it causes here in Australia. There is also very high depression here amongst our youth, we have the highest suicide rate for that age category in the world (esp. in terms of youth in rural areas). Compounded with this, youth unemployment is & has always been higher than for older adults. This is not a record to be proud of. Frankly, I don't know what we can do about this, even the experts are not sure (although good initiatives have been launched, like the recent RUOK campaign). Politicians are waking up to this here, but it's a long struggle to make changes. & there'll be hard decisions, like limiting opening hours of pubs & clubs & also putting more tax on alcohol (it has to happen, wine at like $2 or $3 a bottle is ridiculous, we tell our young people not to drink when grog is like cheaper than bottled water)...


----------



## Ravellian

Some of you seem to be dismissing video games of having any realism whatsoever. It should be obvious to any modern gamer that games are much more advanced than they were 5-10 years ago. I purposefully mentioned GTA IV rather than GTA III because of the very realistic graphics and physics engine present in the former game. GTA III has more of a cartoonish look, so it's hard to take the violence very seriously. We are, indeed, getting closer and closer to the 'real thing' as technology continues to improve. And again, the more realistic a game appears to be, the more likely it is to influence how people think.

Suppose, for argument's sake, we have a video game, say Grand Theft Auto XVII, that mimics the real world perfectly: it looks and feels exactly like the real world, and the AI of CPUs perfectly mimic how humans behave. Now the particular game you're playing is an open-world, sandbox game. As in GTA IV, you're given free reign to do whatever you want: slaughter innocents, have sex with hookers, etc. Don't you think this game would have a strong effect on people?

Now video games aren't quite that advanced of course, _yet_, but they can often mimic the real world well enough to at least provide a strong illusion of realism for their given environment. The game perfectly mimicking real life, described above, will still be a simulated world where our consequences don't mean anything in the 'real world,' but certainly playing these games would influence our behaviors? I believe the potential influence that can be obtained from playing video games could be much more potent than that obtained from a movie or book, since you are actively controlling what goes on in a game, rather than just watching/reading the events that occur.


----------



## kv466

Last video game I played was Pac Man but they still say I'm a lady killer!


----------



## mmsbls

I tend to agree with StLukes and Ravellian. The question is not whether video games will turn average children into homicidal killers but whether video games can have a subtle effect on those who might be borderline. We can't do the proper study of course, but what we'd truly like to know is the increase in violence between a world without video games (or violent ones) and our present world. Perhaps the difference would be negligible. On the other hand, there might be a significant difference measured not in murders but in unwanted acts of violence. 

The only video games I've liked are Zelda and Mario - plenty of destruction, but only to things not remotely humanoid.


----------



## graaf

I had a much longer text here. I deleted it because I saw how pointless it was to argue with someone who with every sentence shows that he doesn't know anything about what he's talking about. I'm talking about relation between video games and violence with StLuke who never played a video game and Ravellian who never did anything else. Ravellian, self proclaimed nerdy looking guy, talking about realism in shooting innocents and sex with hookers? How close to a hooker have you ever stood? Have you ever fired a gun? I at least did one of those - guess which one. In the meantime, I bid you farewell, my knowledgeable and experienced friends.


----------



## Ravellian

graaf said:


> I had a much longer text here. I deleted it because I saw how pointless it was to argue with someone who with every sentence shows that he doesn't know anything about what he's talking about. I'm talking about relation between video games and violence with StLuke who never played a video game and Ravellian who never did anything else. Ravellian, self proclaimed nerdy looking guy, talking about realism in shooting innocents and sex with hookers? How close to a hooker have you ever stood? Have you ever fired a gun? I at least did one of those - guess which one. In the meantime, I bid you farewell, my knowledgeable and experienced friends.


Resorting to ad hominems is not going to persuade anybody. If you would properly address my posts, I would like to see your response, since you seem to be such an "expert" on all of this.


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...It has been repeatedly suggested that surely everyone can discern "reality" from fantasy? Is this really true?...


I think that what you said about untruth in news is different from the fantasy of video games. One presents itself as truth, the other is just entertainment. Otherwise, I liked your post...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I had a much longer text here. I deleted it because I saw how pointless it was to argue with someone who with every sentence shows that he doesn't know anything about what he's talking about.

I find it sadly comic that graaf needs to inform me that I don't know anything of what I am talking about... in spite of fact that a week ago he sent me a visitor message complimenting me on the intelligence of my posts... which he has since needed to erase. Rather petty, it would seem. I guessa single disagreement can result in one going from being an intelligent poster to an idiot overnight. Or perhaps such erratic behavior can be attributed to excessive playing of video-games... or hours of listening to Wagner?:lol:

I might note that I have indeed played video games... some of the oldest when I was still a teen... but they only bore me now, in spite of the efforts of various family members to interest me in playing. personally, I don't see how the question of whether I have played video-games, listened to gangster rap and heavy metal, read the Marquis De Sade, or spent hours watching hard-core violent porn plays the least role in undermining the issues or questions I have raised.

We cannot help but be influenced by our environment and our experiences. Everyday I witness the effects of this upon the children I teach. As an educator I work toward providing positive experiences for children. It is amazing how much something as simple as the orderliness and cleanliness of a classroom or even just a compliment ("Nice work, Dante.") can impact a child. To then suggest that a child ignored by his or her parent and allowed to sit for hours in front of violent horror films, violent video games, and/or on-line porn sites will in no way be effected would seem far more ignorant than anything I have yet suggested.

Of course there is no sudden cut-off point at which a child becomes mature enough to look at all that is being thrown at him or her through the media and the arts and view it with a wholly critical and objective eye. A certain number will never reach that state.

I think that what you said about untruth in news is different from the fantasy of video games. One presents itself as truth, the other is just entertainment. Otherwise, I liked your post...

To an extent, I agree. It is certainly easier to be fooled into thinking of the news as representing "reality" than a film or a video game... but ultimately part of the attraction of movies and books and video-games is a suspension of disbelief... an illusion of "reality". Why do we have those who criticize a film such as _Amadeus_ for historical inaccuracies? Shakespeare is just as full of historical "fiction". But many imagine the role of a historical film is to mirror "reality"... when its role is entertainment. We face the same problem with the news when we imagine it represents "reality" or "truth" when it is just as much about entertainment as the movies.

Again I will state I am not calling for any form of censorship, but I am suggesting that we may need to question the power of the arts... for better or worse... especially as propagated through the mass media. We need to question what messages are being promoted... by whom... and for what purpose? We need to especially question the impact of the media on children who are least prepared to think about what they are exposed to with a critical eye.


----------



## Polednice

The direction of this thread is a shame as it could have been an interesting discussion.

I have another point to make, but first I want to make it clear that I'm not going to do my usual of responding to others' individual paragraphs on a point-by-point basis, because there is a lot of obfuscation going on, wilful or otherwise. There is so much confusion that I have absolutely no desire to untangle, especially because I'm so tired!

I just want to offer a perspective on the huge difference between our perception of the 'reality' of something like Obama's lineage, and the morality of stabbing another human being. The latter of these is so vitally, fundamentally different in that we can empathise with the consequences of the act. In other words, remember the Golden Rule. No matter what a video game may allow us to do, we will always know that getting stabbed will not be very nice, and this empathy is what stops us from becoming psychopaths and stabbing others.

I don't think the conversation so far has taken proper account of immutable basic survival instincts. We are not blank slates, fully malleable to any and all cultural influences.


----------



## Igneous01

To the original question: no I dont think we should be blaming these sources for causing violence solely. Because whether we like it or not, we are still being influenced by it subconsciously (that is what our subconscious does, it takes in all information, and allows for us to learn to do certain things, by making a pattern out of these influences).

So while the media outlets are not solely responsible for causing acts of violence, they are an ingredient that adds to the mixture, what triggers the violence is most likely a catalyst (an event in reality the stirs great unrest or stress in an individual) which leads to irrational thinking and in a way, browsing through their influences for an answer to their stress.

I dont know how many here have had nervous breakdown or mental breakdowns, but for those who havnt, have really no idea of the thought process that occur in such situations. You are physically and mentally backed into a corner, and filled with nothing but negative thought and flashbacks of that event that triggered your breakdown, and in order to make that dread end, search desperately for a solution by either escaping into fantasy, or imagining those violent acts as the solution to your problems. I have had my fair share of borderline insanity moments.

so the sole problem is definatly not the media, its when someone faces psychological problems that they yield to these influences for an answer - because its all they know (you dont invent solutions from nothingness when in stress)

My issue with the media is the amount of advertisements i have to see everyday. watching tv for 50 minutes, there is a commercial break every 5 minutes that lasts 1-2 minutes, thats a good 8 or 9 advertisements times 10 = 80-90 advertisements an hour, plus radio, billboard signs, and internet, you easily are influenced whether you like it or not, by 1000s of ads a day. And while I ignore the advertisements, I still remember the punch line to pull ups "Im a big kid now".

so my point is, advertisements teach you to be autonomous, and for people who cant think critically for themselves, become dependent on advertisements to tell them what to do in their lives. Your boss tells you how to do your job, the police tell you how to drive on the road, your priest tells you how to be a good person, and your government tells you whats right for the nation. Without the ability to think, you lose the ability to question these kinds of things, and then it becomes really easy to influence and in a way control people.

I think maryln manson was right in saying we are perpetuated by fear, being told what to do, because if we dont, we have to think for ourselves, and for some people, thats just not possible (im not talking out people here on the forums, im just saying in general)

this is a very good explanation of the subconscious


----------



## starthrower

Polednice said:


> The direction of this thread is a shame as it could have been an interesting discussion.
> 
> I have another point to make, but first I want to make it clear that I'm not going to do my usual of responding to others' individual paragraphs on a point-by-point basis, because there is a lot of obfuscation going on, wilful or otherwise. There is so much confusion that I have absolutely no desire to untangle, especially because I'm so tired!
> 
> I just want to offer a perspective on the huge difference between our perception of the 'reality' of something like Obama's lineage, and the morality of stabbing another human being. The latter of these is so vitally, fundamentally different in that we can empathise with the consequences of the act. In other words, remember the Golden Rule. No matter what a video game may allow us to do, we will always know that getting stabbed will not be very nice, and this empathy is what stops us from becoming psychopaths and stabbing others.
> 
> I don't think the conversation so far has taken proper account of immutable basic survival instincts. We are not blank slates, fully malleable to any and all cultural influences.


Well the original post by violadude posed the question of how deviant behavior is portrayed in the media. So the discussion should be focused on how the media oversimplifies complex issues, not about the golden rule, or psychology.


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> Well the original post by violadude posed the question of how deviant behavior is portrayed in the media. So the discussion should be focused on how the media oversimplifies complex issues, not about the golden rule, or psychology.


See title of thread plus OP for: "Do you think the media is accurate in blaming musicians like Marilyn Manson, TV shows and video games?"


----------



## kv466

In all seriousness, I am a prime example of why you should not blame anyone but the parents, the upbringing and serveral circumstances that vary from individual to individual...sure, my folks didn't know not to put full cable tv in a ten year old's room but they sure taught me the value of life and to never take it from another...I grew up watching and loving films like A Texas Chainsaw Massacre and have still liked them up to Hostel and beyond...have I always known the difference? Sure. The more real and close to being actually possible, the scarier it is! I grew up shooting guns and continue to do so to date; the only thing I shoot and will ever want to shoot is a lifeless target, most preferably coins. I listened to Slayer, Ozzy, Dark Angel and Danzig...I hung out with Marylin when they were still playing record shops in south Miami...it's all for show...they're about as 'dark and demented' as the guy sitting next to you on the bus ride home from work.

Sure, the argument about how it would affect someone who is already on the verge can always and will always be made...but, there it is...'on the verge' and nothing can really stop this...only ease it along and well, I don't feel that everyone should be stopped from enjoying certain things in order to not expose a certain few to some things that may or may not drive them over the edge. Look at someone who was prepared to blow up the world through the use of mailed explosives; they were shacked up in a 12 x 12 wood cabin with one tiny window in the backwoods of Montana...no electricity therefor no movies, video games or music...this person was prepared to destroy anything and anyone...this is something he had deep inside, since childhood.


----------



## starthrower

I suppose there isn't much a parent can do if their child is predisposed to mental illness which leads to psychopathic behavior. But children are definitely influenced by media, and I can't think of anyone closer to a blank slate than an infant plopped in front of the boob tube for several hours everyday while mom chills out.

Parents should educate their children about media influence so they understand that it's not reality based, and that they are being manipulated.


----------



## sabrina

Philip said:


> obviously you've never fired a weapon in your life


Unbelievable, but I did it, more than once. That was while doing some military training, long time ago. Of course, I didn't manage to kill anybody.LOL
As I said, the DAMAGE is done! You cannot remove all the guns the population has, unless communism sets in... But that's so sad. People (except police and army) should not have access to guns, and at least part of the killings are gone. But that's impossible. I love America, but I can't understand how they did this stupid thing.


----------



## Philip

sabrina said:


> Unbelievable, but I did it, more than once. That was while doing some military training, long time ago. Of course, I didn't manage to kill anybody.LOL
> As I said, the DAMAGE is done! You cannot remove all the guns the population has, unless communism sets in... But that's so sad. People (except police and army) should not have access to guns, and at least part of the killings are gone. But that's impossible. I love America, but I can't understand how they did this stupid thing.


Well, I'm impressed! What did you fire? C7 assault rifle? Anyway... to understand why americans love guns so much you simply have to look at their history, I guess


----------



## sabrina

Philip said:


> Anyway... to understand why americans love guns so much you simply have to look at their history, I guess


I don't get it, independence wars, other types of wars, slaves, whatever other condition, are common with many other countries. That does not mean it is so easy to buy a gun in Europe. I don't think history justifies freedom for buying guns.


----------



## graaf

Ravellian said:


> Resorting to ad hominems is not going to persuade anybody. If you would properly address my posts, I would like to see your response, since you seem to be such an "expert" on all of this.


When nerd talks about hookers, ad hominem is all that _is_ relevant.  And by the way - "one of those two" meant using guns - never claimed that I'm expert, just that I used them 


StlukesguildOhio said:


> I find it sadly comic that graaf needs to inform me that I don't know anything of what I am talking about... in spite of fact that a week ago he sent me a visitor message complimenting me on the intelligence of my posts... which he has since needed to erase. Rather petty, it would seem. I guessa single disagreement can result in one going from being an intelligent poster to an idiot overnight. Or perhaps such erratic behavior can be attributed to excessive playing of video-games... or hours of listening to Wagner?:lol:


I sure did send you a message admiring length of your posts and what I perceived to be well researched writing about, among other things, American literature. I obviously didn't know much about American writers (something I readily admit) to actually estimate the worth of those posts, and made a poor decision to inform myself from them. But once I see the same member saying that video games can make you _violent _the same way advertisement can make you _spend money_, or that kids didn't use _chairs _to fight before there was _wrestle mania_ - once I see that, of course I will question many other of his posts - thus the "need" to delete my message.

Nobody is denying that influences exists - from _very subjective_ point of view, it could be almost said that all the world is, is just a bunch of influences on us. But not all of them make a person violent. Video games didn't make youth violent, no more than Socrates made them decadent. But I'm sure your wall of text on the subject might persuade someone otherwise, if they didn't know who Socrates was in the first place - it might even persuade them he played video games if they didn't know when he lived!


----------



## clavichorder

starthrower said:


> I suppose there isn't much a parent can do if their child is predisposed to mental illness which leads to psychopathic behavior.


Please make sure you are not making a blanket statement about the mentally ill. And understand that psychopathy and psychosis are two completely different things. Schizophrenics are generally harmful to no one but themselves. Psychopaths see reality clearly but lack empathy.


----------



## graaf

Polednice said:


> I just want to offer a perspective on the huge difference between our perception of the 'reality' of something like Obama's lineage, and the morality of stabbing another human being. The latter of these is so vitally, fundamentally different in that we can empathise with the consequences of the act.


If someone told me that he had a discussion with causal connection between violent video games and Obama's birthplace, I would not believe him at first. Then I would ask - was it on the internet?  The next obvious question would be - did it end up with Nazis?


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Since we're on the subject of personal anecdotes, honestly, a little desensitizing doesn't do any harm. When I was barely a toddler, I saw a bunch of those shady bootleg VHS snuff films (snuff might be the wrong word--compilations of accidental deaths caught on video. And not that fake Faces of Death series, I know about that) because a certain relation used to collect them for some reason. The gore registered in a detached, scientific way, and I'm pretty sure it didn't skew my moral compass from pointing toward the conclusion "violent death is a bad thing" as I got older.

You know the kind of person I'm worried about? Someone who grew up in a household that pretended violence and sex don't exist. They're the ones I'll be sure to act nice to, in case they decide to go postal some day.


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> I suppose there isn't much a parent can do if their child is predisposed to mental illness which leads to psychopathic behavior. But children are definitely influenced by media, and I can't think of anyone closer to a blank slate than an infant plopped in front of the boob tube for several hours everyday while mom chills out.
> 
> Parents should educate their children about media influence so they understand that it's not reality based, and that they are being manipulated.


You're just repeating a mantra like idealism, which is what makes me suspicious. As with the snide mom comment, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of this animosity from all corners is based on class differences or some other them-and-us mentality: mums who let their kids watch TV are irresponsible and the kids are just dumb. Seriously, children do not need to be told that their is a difference between interacting with human activities on a screen the size of their torso and actual physical interaction with physical human beings. You may think you're higher than the media, immune to its effects, but everyone is influenced. The key thing however is that under no circumstances can any form of media transmute our basic sense of morality. Only under illegal, unnatural scientific experiments would this even be a possibility.


----------



## Ravellian

Okay, so I'm not qualified to talk about hookers  

Anyway, for the record, I also am not calling for censorship, I just wish people would take more seriously the effects of playing realistic games, particularly on kids. Aren't most 'evil' actions rooted in evil intentions and thoughts? When you do an evil act in a game, you're not actually doing the act in real life, but you still have the 'intent' to do the act. And then you get the corresponding thrill of having done something you know is wrong without getting punished for it for it. Of course, there's a big gap between intent and action, and we adults recognize that, but it might be harder for kids. I, for one, don't want to take the risk.

What about the hypothetical scenario I posted earlier with the hyper-realistic game? You all don't think playing GTA Real Life 20 hours a day will have any effect on anything?


----------



## Polednice

Ravellian said:


> When you do an evil act in a game, you're not actually doing the act in real life, but you still have the 'intent' to do the act.


This needs a very specific clarification. When I, happy as larry, slash a hooker's throat in GTA IV, that does _not_ in _any way_ mean that I would _like_ to slash a real hooker's throat, but restrain myself from doing it because I know it's wrong. I do it because I have a sick sense of humour.



Ravellian said:


> What about the hypothetical scenario I posted earlier with the hyper-realistic game? You all don't think playing GTA Real Life 20 hours a day will have any effect on anything?


I'm not really sure on this one, but we'd have left the realm of video games for fully immersive virtual reality anyway.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

My case's quite peculiar to say the least. I've never been able to cross the line [even] in video games (singleplayer, that is; multiplayer games are just a platform for competitive interaction). I've always been the good guy in RTS campaigns, RPG (Planescape: Torment, Nox), etc.

I've been the good and loving god in Black and White, too. Weird.


----------



## starthrower

clavichorder said:


> Please make sure you are not making a blanket statement about the mentally ill. And understand that psychopathy and psychosis are two completely different things. Schizophrenics are generally harmful to no one but themselves. Psychopaths see reality clearly but lack empathy.


Yes, I understand this. One of my oldest friends is Schizophrenic and he wouldn't hurt a fly. So no, I wasn't making a blanket statement.


----------



## Ravellian

Well, perhaps it's truly impossible to solve this debate until we get truly lifelike games. Until then, everything is speculation.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Ravellian said:


> You all don't think playing GTA Real Life 20 hours a day will have any effect on anything?


Their grades, sleeping patterns and eyes. But no, I don't think it would turn them into little killers, or push them in that direction.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Graaf- I sure did send you a message admiring length of your posts and what I perceived to be well researched writing about, among other things, American literature. I obviously didn't know much about American writers (something I readily admit) to actually estimate the worth of those posts, and made a poor decision to inform myself from them. But once I see the same member saying that video games can make you violent the same way advertisement can make you spend money, or that kids didn't use chairs to fight before there was wrestle mania - once I see that, of course I will question many other of his posts - thus the "need" to delete my message.

In other words, an individual (myself) has raised some questions as to the possible negative influence of something you love (video games). Because you love said video games every question raised about the possible negative influence of the same must be pure lunacy, and as a result, anything the individual has to say about any other subject... even those that you admittedly are ignorant of... is now wholly suspect. And here I am the one being painted as some extremist... by an individual who seemingly cannot see the world beyond black and white?

Polednice- I just want to offer a perspective on the huge difference between our perception of the 'reality' of something like Obama's lineage, and the morality of stabbing another human being. The latter of these is so vitally, fundamentally different in that we can empathise with the consequences of the act.

In the long run I am far more concerned about the impact of the media upon the voters, and I am more concerned with regard to the media impact upon impressionable children than I am about the media upon the borderline personalities that may or may not be impacted in such a way as to inspire violent behavior. The survival of our government depends upon critical thinking and the ability to look at issue objectively without the influence of twisted facts brought to you care of the mass media and bought and paid for by big money.


----------



## starthrower

Polednice said:


> You're just repeating a mantra like idealism, which is what makes me suspicious. As with the snide mom comment, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of this animosity from all corners is based on class differences or some other them-and-us mentality: mums who let their kids watch TV are irresponsible and the kids are just dumb. Seriously, children do not need to be told that their is a difference between interacting with human activities on a screen the size of their torso and actual physical interaction with physical human beings. You may think you're higher than the media, immune to its effects, but everyone is influenced. The key thing however is that under no circumstances can any form of media transmute our basic sense of morality. Only under illegal, unnatural scientific experiments would this even be a possibility.


As for the first part of your response, your making inaccurate assumptions and putting words in my mouth. I never said kids were dumb, and it has nothing to do with class. Hey, I'm a working stiff myself. I just feel like a few less hours in front of the TV would be beneficial to most kids. I'm not worried about the moral fiber being undermined, or a propensity for violence. It's the other crap like advertizing that constantly emphasizes having over being, and style over substance.

As far as TV news media is concerned, I find it to be rather worthless. Especially CNN, and the major networks here in America. I doubt most young people even bother with it. I know for myself, I'd rather read the news, or use the computer. If I do watch some TV news, I'll seek out the foreign networks or independent news programs here in the states.


----------



## Shamit

Well blaming violence on music is a very old tactic. This is just the media and society's need pointing fingers to something that has a form then deal with the more complex psychological reason for this sort of violence. although certain music genres do have negative effects, rap listeners tend to be sexist, and simplistic music kills creativity etc, i dont think any would drive someone to the point of mass murder


----------



## Polednice

StlukesguildOhio said:


> In the long run I am far more concerned about the impact of the media upon the voters, and I am more concerned with regard to the media impact upon impressionable children than I am about the media upon the borderline personalities that may or may not be impacted in such a way as to inspire violent behavior. The survival of our government depends upon critical thinking and the ability to look at issue objectively without the influence of twisted facts brought to you care of the mass media and bought and paid for by big money.


Then we share the same concern. I just wasn't under the impression that that was what we were talking about.


----------



## starthrower

The government will survive, it's democracy I'm worried about.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Shamit said:


> rap listeners tend to be sexist,


Disenfranchised, uneducated people tend to be sexist. Modern rap just overlaps with that demographic to a huge degree, like many commercial genres do.


----------



## Philip

Shamit said:


> although certain music genres do have negative effects, rap listeners tend to be sexist, and simplistic music kills creativity etc,


and people who think like you "tend" to be ignorant..


----------



## Ralfy

For video games, look up killology studies, such as references to simulators used in the military to minimize hesitation when firing small arms during battle, etc.


----------

