Video games Back in the US dock.

[Darth Wong]

You cannot deny however that the profusion of base images in popular culture impact the minds of children exposed to them. Without proper moderation by a source of adult authority - a parent or caretaker -, it isn't a stretch to suggest that many people might be desensitized.

Indeed. So why are the same people who preach action against videogame makers happily exposing their children to depictions of genocide, infanticide, murder, rape, and bio-terrorism (all committed by the good guys) by sending their kids to Sunday School to study the Bible?

[Utsanomiko]

You cannot deny however that the profusion of base images in popular culture impact the minds of children exposed to them. Without proper moderation by a source of adult authority - a parent or caretaker -, it isn't a stretch to suggest that many people might be desensitized.

Oh, I can deny it quite easily, or rather the lack of substantial evidence can. There is simply no correllation between exposure to violent media and chances of violent behavior. In fact, studies on video games have shown that such a correllation doesn't exist because normal people separate real violence from fake.

In other words, in order to become a violent loony, you have to already be a violent loony, which means anythnig including games will set you off; like soccer practice, a Shania Twain album, or cupcakes.

[RedImperator]

Did I say that media should be held directly responsible? No. I did no such thing.

Yet you called for some unspecified new regulation, presumably to restrict the depicion of violence in the media, when there is no evidence that will accomplish anything at all. You might not be accusing the executives of Rockstar games of personally killing people, but you're still arguing that some kind of censorship will improve the situation, in spite of statistics that say otherwise.

You cannot deny however that the profusion of base images in popular culture impact the minds of children exposed to them. Without proper moderation by a source of adult authority - a parent or caretaker -, it isn't a stretch to suggest that many people might be desensitized.

I would argue that being in a violent culture desensitizes them to violence, and there's no practical way to change that unless you'd also like to extend your new regulations to the evening news. Since despite being in a culture awash in violent images, the vast majority of children do NOT grow up to become murderers, "desensitizing" people to violence doesn't seem to have the effect people have claimed (and you're still left with the problem of Canada and Japan, which have an equally violent popular culture yet miniscule murder rates).

You're right that young children shouldn't be allowed to watch Goodfellas or play GTA III, but you can't force parents to do their fucking jobs and it's unfair and unjustified to punish legitimate businesses and legal adults for the inaction of parents.

[Axis Kast]

Indeed. So why are the same people who preach action against videogame makers happily exposing their children to depictions of genocide, infanticide, murder, rape, and bio-terrorism (all committed by the good guys ) by sending their kids to Sunday School to study the Bible?

Jesus Christ. You don’t miss a beat with the bullshit, do you?

The study of the Bible by anybody under high school age is generally a very placid activity – not that children who do learn about the Crusades are very likely to be leafing through picture books of “Christianity’s Greatest Murders” anyway,

[quoteOh, I can deny it quite easily, or rather the lack of substantial evidence can. There is simply no correllation between exposure to violent media and chances of violent behavior. In fact, studies on video games have shown that such a correllation doesn't exist because normal people separate real violence from fake.

In other words, in order to become a violent loony, you have to already be a violent loony, which means anythnig including games will set you off; like soccer practice, a Shania Twain album, or cupcakes.
[/quote]

Did you do the research yourself, or are you simply repeating verbatim what you heard from others (who must have, incidentally, been preaching to the choir)?

Define “normal people.”

This issue is simply one of logic. It works on the same principle as marketing. When we see the things we like associated with the people, images, or lifestyles we like, it’s a good sell. Just as when we see things against which we have been warned in the hands of people we like living the lifestyles we like, desensitization occurs.

Yet you called for some unspecified new regulation, presumably to restrict the depicion of violence in the media, when there is no evidence that will accomplish anything at all. You might not be accusing the executives of Rockstar games of personally killing people, but you're still arguing that some kind of censorship will improve the situation, in spite of statistics that say otherwise.

I did? Where? I pointed out the government’s line of reasoning and stated a similarity of basic opinion. Is that a crime? You’re feeding words into my mouth.

This argument really revolves around bad parents and the state’s responsibility to limit the impact of negligence. Violent video games and explicit lyrics in music exacerbate the situation. We get commentary with news; games and songs often stand alone – and without connection to consequence.

You're right that young children shouldn't be allowed to watch Goodfellas or play GTA III, but you can't force parents to do their fucking jobs and it's unfair and unjustified to punish legitimate businesses and legal adults for the inaction of parents.

But young children are regularly allowed to watch Goodfellas. Most own GTA 3. The state might not be able to force parents to “do their fucking jobs,” but it can certainly limit the degree and extent of gratuitous violence in computer games and musical lyrics. That however is a whole new argument. The basis of this one is simply whether or not the entertainment media has a negative impact on young people, not what can or should be done about it.

[Darth Wong]

Indeed. So why are the same people who preach action against videogame makers happily exposing their children to depictions of genocide, infanticide, murder, rape, and bio-terrorism (all committed by the good guys ) by sending their kids to Sunday School to study the Bible?

Jesus Christ. You don’t miss a beat with the bullshit, do you?

Speak for yourself, asshole.

The study of the Bible by anybody under high school age is generally a very placid activity – not that children who do learn about the Crusades are very likely to be leafing through picture books of “Christianity’s Greatest Murders” anyway,

Ah, so if you teach children about glorious genocides, massacres, infanticides, bioterrorism attacks, and rapes committed by the conquering Jews but they're placid while you do it, then it's A-OK, right?

Name one Christian child who is not familiarized with the Flood and the Exodus, aka the made-for-children Disney film "Prince of Egypt".

But of course, you seem to think I'm talking about the Crusades, not the Bible. I suggest you learn to read.

[Utsanomiko]

Did you do the research yourself, or are you simply repeating verbatim what you heard from others (who must have, incidentally, been preaching to the choir)?

The same could be asked of you. Is your claim based off anyhting, other than shaky studies about raised heartbeat levels, and wild assumptions?

Define “normal people.”

As in people who don't already have violent tendancies. People who can properly discern reality from fantasy.

This issue is simply one of logic. It works on the same principle as marketing. When we see the things we like associated with the people, images, or lifestyles we like, it’s a good sell. Just as when we see things against which we have been warned in the hands of people we like living the lifestyles we like, desensitization occurs.

All an assumption that persuasive advertising and postive images has anything to do with a supposed breakdown of ethics from exposure to fantasy violence. Desensitization to violent depictions or real violence, maybe, but desensitization of judgement? Give me a break.

[Vendetta]

Ah, so if you teach children about glorious genocides, massacres, infanticides, bioterrorism attacks, and rapes committed by the conquering Jews but they're placid while you do it, then it's A-OK, right?

What are you talking about?

Those were the best bits.

It was boring after they'd stopped shagging and killing each other.

[RedImperator]

But young children are regularly allowed to watch Goodfellas. Most own GTA 3.

And yet most don't shoot people. There's the problem that anyone who wants to place restrictions on the content of games, music, and movies has to deal with. The statistics just don't bear out their arguments.

The state might not be able to force parents to “do their fucking jobs,” but it can certainly limit the degree and extent of gratuitous violence in computer games and musical lyrics. That however is a whole new argument. The basis of this one is simply whether or not the entertainment media has a negative impact on young people, not what can or should be done about it.

Common sense says that some young people will be negatively impacted, whether it's something as minor as nightmares about a bloody murder they saw on screen or as serious as carrying a pistol because wants to live "the thug life". But when you talk about government intervention, especially in something as important as free expression, you have to consider if the media is the primary cause of the violence in question, and if there are enough of those incidents to justify intervention. The jury is still out on the first question and the evidence is overwhelmingly against intervention on the second. You also have to consider if restrictions will have any real effect on the impact the media already has. You might be able to stop GTA IV, but how do you plan on curbing violent lyrics in underground music? Or stopping a 10 year old from watching his parents' copy of Pulp Fiction?

There's undoubtedly something wrong in a society where teenagers fire rifles at passing cars for fun. Nobody is disputing that. The problem, however, is not that video games and music are turning kids into killers. I know why a lot of people want to believe that; it's an easy solution, and it's more palatable than facing the rot, but it's not the real answer and ultimately it's a distraction from the real solution, whatever that happens to be.

[Darth Wong]

Personally, I think that people who commit violent crimes do so because they have no hope of a better existence. If Joe Criminal sincerely thought that he had a realistic chance of becoming a successful business executive if he stayed on the straight and narrow, then he might not risk that future in order to knock off a convenience store. However, we all know that Joe Criminal does not think that such a thing is even remotely possible. People in certain environments have simply lost hope, and when hope is lost, civility soon follows.

[RedImperator]

Personally, I think that people who commit violent crimes do so because they have no hope of a better existence. If Joe Criminal sincerely thought that he had a realistic chance of becoming a successful business executive if he stayed on the straight and narrow, then he might not risk that future in order to knock off a convenience store. However, we all know that Joe Criminal does not think that such a thing is even remotely possible. People in certain environments have simply lost hope, and when hope is lost, civility soon follows.

That explains the vast majority of crime, but it doesn't explain random spasms of violence by middle class teenagers.

It's been pointed out over and over that the kids responsible for the school shootings are outcastes and victims of bullies. There have always been outcastes and victims of bullies in schools--I wonder now how many of them fantasized about doing exactly what a few of them have actually done. The question is, what's changed in society that would cause violent fantasies to turn into violent reality?

[Darth Wong]

That explains the vast majority of crime, but it doesn't explain random spasms of violence by middle class teenagers.

Addressing the vast majority of crime would still be a major accomplishment, even if it doesn't solve the occasional wacko.

It's been pointed out over and over that the kids responsible for the school shootings are outcastes and victims of bullies. There have always been outcastes and victims of bullies in schools--I wonder now how many of them fantasized about doing exactly what a few of them have actually done. The question is, what's changed in society that would cause violent fantasies to turn into violent reality?

It's possible that mind-altering drugs were a factor. Eric Harris (one of the Columbine shooters) was taking Zoloft, a powerful antidepressant which has been linked to psychotic episodes. These kinds of drugs are increasingly popular among middle-class working parents who need to "control" their wayward kids without the need for actual time-consuming supervision and parenting skills.

[RedImperator]

Addressing the vast majority of crime would still be a major accomplishment, even if it doesn't solve the occasional wacko.

You aleady know my solution. I don't feel like flogging that horse today.

IIt's possible that mind-altering drugs were a factor. Eric Harris (one of the Columbine shooters) was taking Zoloft, a powerful antidepressant which has been linked to psychotic episodes. These kinds of drugs are increasingly popular among middle-class working parents who need to "control" their wayward kids without the need for actual time-consuming supervision and parenting skills.

Interesting. I hadn't heard that one.

[Joe]

It's possible that mind-altering drugs were a factor. Eric Harris (one of the Columbine shooters) was taking Zoloft, a powerful antidepressant which has been linked to psychotic episodes. These kinds of drugs are increasingly popular among middle-class working parents who need to "control" their wayward kids without the need for actual time-consuming supervision and parenting skills.

Ritalin (pharmacological cousin of methamphetamine) is also pretty popular in the U.S. Unbelievably over-prescribed.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I remember ritalin...

I hate that shit.

[Axis Kast]

Speak for yourself, asshole.

I’m not the one dismissing all organized religion as shameless indoctrination into rites of violence.

Ah, so if you teach children about glorious genocides, massacres, infanticides, bioterrorism attacks, and rapes committed by the conquering Jews but they're placid while you do it, then it's A-OK, right?

First of all, your entire assessment of religion is value-laden. Or did you honestly forget that the Bible includes quite a few passages regarding societal obligation, moral responsibility, and proper – i.e. socially acceptable – relationships between two and more human beings?

And don’t tell me that children encounter the kinds of blatant scenes you’re using here in all their negative, propagandic force.

But of course, you seem to think I'm talking about the Crusades, not the Bible. I suggest you learn to read.

I don’t see where the basic story of Passover has a terribly detrimental impact on society as a whole – but hey, I’m not looking for theological conspiracy around every other corner.

he same could be asked of you. Is your claim based off anyhting, other than shaky studies about raised heartbeat levels, and wild assumptions?

Look around you. Look at society. Music suddenly advocates violence, suicide, and drug use on a mass scale. Television shows desensitize us to senseless violence. Every day we are bombarded with images of consequence-free substance abuse. It’s one thing to say that the average American should be immune if “all systems are go” (meaning he has decent parents). It’s another thing to assume that all of our children are as fortunate.

As in people who don't already have violent tendancies. People who can properly discern reality from fantasy.

Violent video games promote more than just violence – or did you miss the drunkards and addicts in Grand Theft Auto, too?

All an assumption that persuasive advertising and postive images has anything to do with a supposed breakdown of ethics from exposure to fantasy violence. Desensitization to violent depictions or real violence, maybe, but desensitization of judgement? Give me a break.

Absolutely desensitization of judgment – or didn’t you notice the rash of American teenagers who’d give their left nut to be Eminem and Fifty Cent, both of whom advocate uninhibited drug use?

And yet most don't shoot people. There's the problem that anyone who wants to place restrictions on the content of games, music, and movies has to deal with. The statistics just don't bear out their arguments.

Do not deviate. We’re talking about impact, not restriction.

Common sense says that some young people will be negatively impacted, whether it's something as minor as nightmares about a bloody murder they saw on screen or as serious as carrying a pistol because wants to live "the thug life". But when you talk about government intervention, especially in something as important as free expression, you have to consider if the media is the primary cause of the violence in question, and if there are enough of those incidents to justify intervention. The jury is still out on the first question and the evidence is overwhelmingly against intervention on the second. You also have to consider if restrictions will have any real effect on the impact the media already has. You might be able to stop GTA IV, but how do you plan on curbing violent lyrics in underground music? Or stopping a 10 year old from watching his parents' copy of Pulp Fiction?

The most appealing option is limited intervention between child and parent – in general, a widening of pre- and post-school programmes as well as community initiatives on a national scale. You might combine this with heavier restrictions on radio – demanding that more lyrics be censored – and a crackdown on excessively violent television or videogames. Now I’m not specifically advocating for any of these, but your suggestion that the state is powerless isn’t truth, either.

There's undoubtedly something wrong in a society where teenagers fire rifles at passing cars for fun. Nobody is disputing that. The problem, however, is not that video games and music are turning kids into killers. I know why a lot of people want to believe that; it's an easy solution, and it's more palatable than facing the rot, but it's not the real answer and ultimately it's a distraction from the real solution, whatever that happens to be.

Oh, the core source of the “rot” is clear: bad parents. But we can’t do much with that. Hence the media – an agitator to the problem – is a more realistic focus.

[Darth Wong]

Speak for yourself, asshole.

I’m not the one dismissing all organized religion as shameless indoctrination into rites of violence.

I can and have backed up my claim with quotes from the Bible. Your response, on the other hand, relies on nothing more than appeals to personal incredulity in lieu of actual rebuttals.

Ah, so if you teach children about glorious genocides, massacres, infanticides, bioterrorism attacks, and rapes committed by the conquering Jews but they're placid while you do it, then it's A-OK, right?

First of all, your entire assessment of religion is value-laden.

Ah yes, I forgot to mention that I assume people agree that murdering babies is bad. How foolish of me

Or did you honestly forget that the Bible includes quite a few passages regarding societal obligation, moral responsibility, and proper – i.e. socially acceptable – relationships between two and more human beings?

Yes. Are you suggesting that a book which contains countless atrocities is made A-OK if it says something nice now and then? I'm afraid it doesn't work that way, any more than a serial killer becomes a nice guy if he volunteered at a soup kitchen.

And don’t tell me that children encounter the kinds of blatant scenes you’re using here in all their negative, propagandic force.

Of course not. That's precisely the point, dumb-ass! They're made to think that it's somehow OK!

But of course, you seem to think I'm talking about the Crusades, not the Bible. I suggest you learn to read.

I don’t see where the basic story of Passover has a terribly detrimental impact on society as a whole – but hey, I’m not looking for theological conspiracy around every other corner.

So there's no harm if you can't see evidence of a direct connection, yet you claimed earliier that we must recognize the connection between videogames and real-life violence?

In other words, you either agree that without direct evidence for causal connection, you should not assume a connection, or you concede that the Bible probably causes a lot of real-life problems. One or the other, take your pick. But you can't have your cake and eat it too, no matter how much you obviously want to.

[RedImperator]

Do not deviate. We’re talking about impact, not restriction.

I'm running out of polite ways to say there's no measureable impact. And funny how you insist we're not talking about restriction, and later IN THIS SAME POST you claim that since we can't do anything about bad parents, we should do "something" about the media. There is NO RELIABLE DATA that suggests violent images in the media lead to increased violence among young people (and I notice you've now extended negative images to include drug use, when you haven't even proven violence). "Common sense" and assertions that something is "obvious" don't cut it, not when you want to talk about making policy changes. Regardless of whether or not you want to talk about them SPECIFICALLY, this whole argument is basically "do those images have enough of an impact to warrant a chance in policy".

The most appealing option is limited intervention between child and parent – in general, a widening of pre- and post-school programmes as well as community initiatives on a national scale.

A good idea that has some real world success to back it up. Of course, someone has to pay for all of it.

You might combine this with heavier restrictions on radio – demanding that more lyrics be censored – and a crackdown on excessively violent television or videogames. Now I’m not specifically advocating for any of these, but your suggestion that the state is powerless isn’t truth, either.

You completely dodged my point. I did NOT say the state was powerless--in fact, I SPECIFICALLY said "you might prevent GTA IV"--but I asked you how you planned to prevent children from being exposed to the wealth of violent material already out there, and crack down on music lyrics when there's already a well established underground that could easily create and distribute the images you're trying to bury.

Oh, the core source of the “rot” is clear: bad parents. But we can’t do much with that. Hence the media – an agitator to the problem – is a more realistic focus.

You haven't proven it's an agitator worth focusing on. I'd say the War on Drugs is a much, much bigger source of violent crime than Eminem CDs could ever hope to be.

[Darth Wong]

Kast's hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife. The Bible depicts the heroes of the story committing terrorism, infanticide, rape, and other assorted war crimes, but he says that we need evidence to connect it to real-life harm. Meanwhile, videogames generally depict the heroes of the story trying to restrict their violence to combatants rather than civilians, and he needs no evidence in order to conclude that they are "agitating" violent crime

[Edi]

Kast's hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife. The Bible depicts the heroes of the story committing terrorism, infanticide, rape, and other assorted war crimes, but he says that we need evidence to connect it to real-life harm. Meanwhile, videogames generally depict the heroes of the story trying to restrict their violence to combatants rather than civilians, and he needs no evidence in order to conclude that they are "agitating" violent crime

Par for the course for him, he uses these same tactics in every single debate I've seen him take part in. He's a Stone Deaf Ferrous Cranus, and has shown no signs of improving.

Edi

[The Yosemite Bear]

One should point out that some of the best really disturbing fiction came from England or Canada. Really low crime rates there too. I mean the Likes of Clive Barker came from England. Now basically it's a question of people accepting responsibilty for their own actions, and for their utter lack of parenting skills. No ignore the kids, give them a credit card, and sit them in front of a computer or a TV while the parent's are busy with their lives, and ignore the kid.

[Utsanomiko]

I also like how he automatically assumes that the increase in violence in American (actually, the increase from the 1950's to the 1980s or so. It's actually been going down in recent years, but that hurts the 'back in my day' arguement) stems directly from violence in the media, and not even consider it possibility that it could be the other way around, or even totally unrelated.

For all Kast is assuming, it could be that today's violence and crime is directly caused by the nation's changes in cost of living, forcing parents to pend more time at wrok and less watching their kids, and enabling crime to become a more lucrative outlet for the underpriveliged.

[Ghost Rider]

Somewhere in AK's mind is this cartoon repeating itself over and over

Thank You PA

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I dunno, this one seems to relate more to his little personal agenda...

[Ghost Rider]

Both work...though the Horsey one is probably on the forefront of his mind.

Saddest part is he's basically reciting word for word Seduction of the Innocent just less intelligently.

[The Yosemite Bear]

And I am certain that those "Pennydreadfuls" caused HH Holmes, Jack The Ripper and Sweeny Todd's Crime spree's. Oh yeah, let's censor everything, we will still have murders and crimes.