153: Killing Me Softly

[Novan Leon]

I don't believe there IS a 'games = violence' meme, so to speak. The 'meme' is nothing more than the media's usual attempt to build a story out of nothing followed by a HUGE overreaction by the geek/gaming community. I don't know anyone, at all, at least in the online or gaming communities, who actually believes that games could cause violence. This is as silly as saying that guns cause crime.

You don't see the media drawing comparisons between violence and movies do you? This is because the media has close ties to Hollywood. On the other hand, the media looks at the video game industry as a foreign animal and fresh meat for their ridiculous drive-by reports.

 

[Nerdfury]

Don't tell me what to take issue with in this article, casual links between this generation's media pariah and murder just infuriate me to no end.

Stop raging up my internet. No one said games cause murder. You're making shit up and slapping it on the forums.

 

[wadark]

I still don't understand why you are so upset about the original post and my own. No one ever tried to link violence to playing video games. I don't know where you got that from. Not once, ever, in my post or the article did we try and make that link. From the beginning, this discussion has simply been about parents being upset with retailers when their children end up playing violent games.

I won't presume to tell you what you can and can't take issue with. However, I find it strange that you are speaking of this in a thread devoted to something else entirely. I especially don't like being personally attacked for it.

Not meant as personal attack, thinking of your post, here, let me run through it there again and highlight what was irking me so:

Its funny, then, that when that child does get the bad idea and decides to shoot up his school, the blame goes as thus: first the developer, then the retailer, then the parent (if it ever gets this far).

It seemed implied that the bad idea came from a game, which a parent neglected to make the effort to educate them self about and censor, my apologies if I read it wrong.

And as far as the the article goes:

"Nope. It's for him," she said, smiling at her young son who boiled over with excitement at the thought of cutting his teeth on the newest murder simulator.

Seifert said. "They never stop to think that the pacifier could be the cause of trouble."

The pacifier being cited being games, it pretty much says it blames games as the cause, not just an influence, the cause of the trouble.

Ugh.

So, its not that I have anything personal against any particular poster, I just see red when I see the viral meme 'games = violence' perpetuating itself. I saw it in the article and some posts, perhaps it was wrong to use wadark's post as an example, and I did not explain myself clearly enough but hopefully this post will clear that up some.

I must've missed that part about the pacifier being the problem. You gave a point there. I realize now that when i said "gets the bad idea" that could've given the wrong impression. And like I said about the author using the "murder simulator" phrase, I assumed it was meant sarcastically, you know. But that's just my interpretation, I don't know. Games do not equal violence, I'll shout that as loud as anyone else. Games are the scapegoat. A perfectly fine expression of free speech that makes for an easy target, being such a young industry.

I wont be naive enough to say that video games don't have SOME influence on a younger child. But even then, that's the responsibility of the parent. Any child young enough to be influenced shouldn't be playing that game, and WOULDNT be playing if the parent paid attention.

 

[Sylocat]

Well, the problem I had with the article is that it doesn't really say anything new... everything being said has been said a million times before, on gaming sites, political blogs and news threads.

So, parents should stop using TV as a cheap substitute for a real babysitter, and they should stop blaming everyone else for their complete lack of willingness to take on parental responsibility. What else is new?

 

[Therumancer]

I tend to agree:

#1: It's the parents job to regulate what games their children play. Period.

#2: Politics on this subject are going out of control. I am in a cruddy position this election because both Obama seems to heavily favor censorship, and like Clinton's involvement in the "San Adreas: Hot Coffee" thing, seems ready to support direct action. The Right Wing on the other hand is more for state and local regulation, unlikely to do more than talk a lot of crud on soap boxes, and have extremists tell us all we're going to hell.

Right now I am concerned mostly because it seems that game producers are scared to even put material suitable for a PG-13 movie into games. Look at the editing of "The Witcher", or even worse how scared Bethesda was over fan-made nudity mods for "Oblivion"?.

What's more ask yourself where this is going to go. It started with "Hate Speech" being regulated indirectly and "Political Correctness". Now we're in the midst of a scare to protect our children from the media (games, movies) and they are also being censorted indirectly, and face it that is a form of artwork. What's next on the slope?

I see this as a bigger issue than Iraq, Global Warming, or most other things. The bottom line is a lot of game sites and such talk a lot of crud about this, but noone seems willing to do anything. I tend to wonder why loosely linked ideological groups like "Anonymous" waste their time picking on the Scientologists, when if their ideals are what they seem to be they should be going up against the ESRB, FCC, Google (for participating in China's censorship policies) and politicians who seem to actually take action in such directions.

Hey I'm not the best informed person out there, the point is that this is a big mess.


#3: School shootings are the result of social problems far bigger than the media. The problem is that schools simply do not enforce school policy. Like it or not, but picking on geeks and rejects is a time honored part of American tradition. It's accepted, and a general degree of freedom in this area is part of the "payoff" for being a jock, cheerleader, or whatever else. What's more every generation feels compelled to outdo the previous generation in the torment they inflict on those who do not fit in.

Parents and grandparents who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s might think that these things end with teasing or a wedgie or something. Quite to the contrary, today it can involve some pretty intense torture and humiliation, both physical and psychological.

The problem is compounded by the fact that when dealing with rejects, they are one person among hundreds or thousands of tormentors. If school policy was enforced, schools would be forced in many cases to expel or suspend the majority of their student body in some cases, for the benefit of a minority of students. Granted a few such examples would change things over a period of time, but in the end there are social reasons why not. It would upset parents, it would affect funding, and ultimatly hurt school reputations.

It should also be remembered that the more priveleged classes of students who go the furthest are also beneficial to the school as a whole. Companies and such put up prize money for high school sporting events. Jocks and to an extent minorities (who through extent bring in ethnic foundation donations) make money for the schools. Not all of which always goes towards what it was intended for. Win the big game? Well a coalition of merchants might donate several thousand dollars to the winning school for a scholorship or new gym equipment. Some of that money which might be shaved off somewhere (the stuff of local contreversy). Got a gifted minority? The school might receive a special grant or reward.

The end result being that if some Jocks beat a nerd or social reject half to death, half drown him in a toilet, or go to the bathroom on him, they will receive no more than a slap on the wrist. If anyone gets serious punishment it will be the reject since removing them is the quickest way to resolve the problem. Even if an excuse needs to be manufactured.

After a while it's no surprise that some kids come to school and start shooting people. Especially if the administration is against them too and ruining their life on another front. After a geek has been suspended and had his permanant record marked because someone picked on him and he complained or tried to defend himself.

People are outraged because to an extent they look back and go "oh well this kid freaked because someone sprayed shaving cream on him in the shower, or gave him a wedgie". That is not the case.

It's also notable that the same targets seem to be on the "lists" of many of these kids that freak out (Jocks, Minority Students, etc...) look at Columbine.

Facist school policies do not work. Anyone who is going to do something like this is not going to be advertising it. Slamming a kid for something stupid just makes them more angry and increases the chance of an incident, especially if they are in this position and would be likely to do something.

The media doesn't matter, because the kids are coming into school to shoot people because a bunch of people held him down and urinated on him in a bathroom at the end of a long series of torment (for example), not because they played violent video games, listened to Marilyn Manson, or watched a Charles Bronson Marathon. Trust me, in certain circumstances people come up with violence all on their own, without any need for prodding.

My general opinion on the subject is that if anyone wants to solve the problem, stop looking for excuses, and simply enforce school policy. Trust me, the administration knows what is going on with this "Hazing" and "picking on people" crud nowadays. There are tons of recorded examples and frankly if someone shows up in class stinking of urine on his shirt chances are he didn't do it himself (for example).

If this means forcing schools to expel prized athletes, shut down million dollar athletic programs, or keep a school open for 30 nerds after expelling everyone else, that is what you do, as that is what the rules are for.

The problem is that the system simply does not work. The kids who go ultra-violent, are those who do so because the system is either not working, or actively becoming part of the problem. If someone marked my permanant record for assault, because someone else beat me up and I landed a few blows in response, and it's going to affect my whole life (college, etc..) I'd be pretty POed too. Especially if the school does it because there it's my story being compared to (heh) six Rowdy, prized Football players who verify each other's story that I "just freaked out" 2 days before a football game where Henderson's Hardware is giving new bleachers or something to the victorious team.

 

[innocent42]

Is the problem really that parents don't pay attention to the games kids play, or is the problem that once they realize what's going they immidiately jump to the conclusion that the game will turn their kids into bloodthirsty killers? The comment about "seeing worse on the news" suggests to me that parents have been taken in by the sensationalist stories in the media about videogames that we've all spent so long complaining about. Other posters in this thread have already said as much. That being said, it's unfortunate that the rating system is being ignored. It is there for a reason, namely to help parents decide what their kids should and should not see, which is a parent's right, up to a point. It's unfortunate that the ratings get ignored. Complaing afterwords is just plain stupid.

 

[Sephinov]

Basically what it all comes down to is this: If the child does end up shooting up some school or doing drugs or whatever from what he saw in the game because he/she can't tell the difference between the game and reality, the child has more mental issues that are causing the behavior and that needs to be dealt with before anything from the game can be determined or ever used against the developers or the retailers.

 

[Lyndraco]

In my personal opinion, linking video games and violence is a scapegoat for parents who were too negligent to see the symptoms that their children were having problems.
In the end, if the parents would actually have a hand in raising their own children and taking responsibility for them, I don't think this would be as much of an issue.
Perhaps as avid gamers themselves start to have children, they will be more aware of/understand the games that their kids are playing and what is appropriate for them. This could help eliminate some of the problem. But, then again, my parents never watched what I was playing and I still turned out fine. If a kid is going to have issues, they will have them with or without video games.

Don't blame the game, blame parents for thinking they don't need to spend time with their kids.

 

[zoozilla]

Want another common fact? Most teenagers play video games that have some degree of conflict and violence, yet we don't see them committing violent acts on the level of murder. Heck, even with degree of error and sample sizes, sources of statistics of violent crime divided by age groups, such as Statistics Canada (not sure what it is in the states or other countries) have been showing a drop in violent crimes for teens and young adults since the advent of video games in the 1980s! ("In comparison, the overall violent crime rate in Canada declined 4% between 1997 and 2006." - http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080516/d080516a.htm)

Well, we are looking, and I for one intend not to be one of those ignorant parents, which shouldn't be too hard since I am a passionate gamer myself. But casually linking real violence and games does not help anything, least of all the sad memories of school shootings.

You know what's interesting? Abortion, which gained popularity in the 90's and recently, could be attributed (partly) to the drop in violent crimes. Before abortion, people (usually teens) who couldn't handle to responsibility of raising a child would abandon their child, who would grow up in crime-ridden environments and would usually take part in gang activity or similar behaviour. After abortion, those kids wouldn't have been born.

Kind of depressing, in a way.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

for arguements sake, let's just say that games do inspire or teach violence.

does this mean that we ban them? does this mean that the federal government should step in and restrict their purchase?

no, we do not. because the ability to pursuade or teach is an ability shared by all forms of art and the government restriction of any idea opens the potential to restrict all ideas.

first they burn the books...

 

[SomeBritishDude]

I never understand how parents can seriously think GTA isn't violent or inappropriat for young kids when it clearly says "18" or "Mature" on the cover. When I was 9-10 the most violence I ever got out of a game was the prince stabbing a sand monster in the chest. No blood, just sand.

Its kind of destirbing to hear parents saying "Whatever" to the idea that their kids going to be shooting up an old lady. I'm not against violent games at all but something needs to put across to parents that "This game is violent, very violent" or "this game has sex in it" or whatever.

It won't be like this in 10 years time, most parents will have had more of an experience of video games that wii sports.

 

[theultimateend]

I don't believe there IS a 'games = violence' meme, so to speak. The 'meme' is nothing more than the media's usual attempt to build a story out of nothing followed by a HUGE overreaction by the geek/gaming community. I don't know anyone, at all, at least in the online or gaming communities, who actually believes that games could cause violence. This is as silly as saying that guns cause crime.

You don't see the media drawing comparisons between violence and movies do you? This is because the media has close ties to Hollywood. On the other hand, the media looks at the video game industry as a foreign animal and fresh meat for their ridiculous drive-by reports.

You should go back and read the news reports that started the move to have Marijuana banned way back when .

They essentially said that Marijuana has (not can but HAS) created murderous maniacs that are ravaging Texas and murdering families.

The story was completely and utterly false but it caused such a panic that the legislature to make Marijuana illegal came swiftly.

They are trying to do the same thing with video games (for what I dunno...) but the problem is the internet helps keep people connected so newspaper and news show propaganda is harder to keep as the primary source of information.

I never understand how parents can seriously think GTA isn't violent or inappropriat for young kids when it clearly says "18" or "Mature" on the cover. When I was 9-10 the most violence I ever got out of a game was the prince stabbing a sand monster in the chest. No blood, just sand.

Its kind of destirbing to hear parents saying "Whatever" to the idea that their kids going to be shooting up an old lady. I'm not against violent games at all but something needs to put across to parents that "This game is violent, very violent" or "this game has sex in it" or whatever.

It won't be like this in 10 years time, most parents will have had more of an experience of video games that wii sports.

I'm glad my parents said whatever. I'm being entirely serious by saying that had I not had Goldeneye when I was younger I WOULD have killed someone.

After a long day of getting every single possible thing they could find to ridicule me about (they being the other school kids) I LOVED going home and relaxing while imagining the characters I was offing were them. It helped me relax and get all that pent up anger out .

Hanna Montana on the other hand makes me want to murder someone...

 

[LCP]

Parents should be informed but they should not be the ones that take action, not the govt.

as a final note, people are afraid of what they don't understand, post parents don't understand games, there we go Game-o-phobia

i think M should be lowered to about 13,

 

[celark]

I think that bad parenting or the lack of it is pretty much the root cause of so many of societies problems. Parents not only not wanting to take an active role in the child's interest but not using common sense to read and RESEARCH on these topics. I also hope that our generation will be more mature and have a much better understanding. As a few people have mentioned, people are afraid of what they do not understand, the only way to solve this problem is for people to get out there and LEARN. Unfortunately, the governments do not want to go to the root of the problem because they would be directly criticising a massive portion of people who they want to vote for them.

 

[NnEtT]

Brilliantly writtin although i do agree the end bit was just strung on and I would have rather heard about stores, games and what goes on. Otherwise hilarious and was an enjoyment to read. On the topic note I don't think violent games make people violent i think violent people make violent games seem violent, Jack "Fuckhead" Thompson even said that WW2 was started due to video game violence. The ignorance of overly protective parenting has painted a bad picture of gameing when really it is a passtime for mere enjoyment.

Although the mess of bloody bodies in my shed says otherwise...

 

[murphy7801]

I used to work in computer game retail hear in the uk and I had no joke several mothers come into to buy grand theft auto vice city (this was few years ago) and San Andreas for there kids who were 4 years old it was messed up. I tried talking them out of it but they all went for it whats wrong with people!

 

[clzark]

when it comes to any media, all parents are stupid, not just when it comes to videogames. I work in a movie theater, and I can't tell you all the times a parent has brought a kid with them to a R movie, and I warn them how bad it is, than come out and get mad at me when something scares the kid, or they see something violent, or they see nudity. luckliy we're allowed to have more of a "I told you so" attitude

 

[Starke]

Great article, except the end, which feels like it's going into a full section about the psychology behind the situation, and then doesn't. The article really could have gone for another page happily.

 

[lobotoja]

I hate to say but games are a bit snuff...