Does anyone else find it pretty ridiculous that video games are being so seriously considered as a motive for this shooting? It just does not make logical sense.

Nero wrote:Does anyone else find it pretty ridiculous that video games are being so seriously considered as a motive for this shooting? It just does not make logical sense.

Not at all. The gun lobby needs something to shift the blame onto, and video games are still New and Scary and the province of Those Awful Kids and therefore a suitable explanation for What's Wrong With The World. Before them it was rock music and the movies.

Sentynel wrote:

Nero wrote:Does anyone else find it pretty ridiculous that video games are being so seriously considered as a motive for this shooting? It just does not make logical sense.

Not at all. The gun lobby needs something to shift the blame onto, and video games are still New and Scary and the province of Those Awful Kids and therefore a suitable explanation for What's Wrong With The World. Before them it was rock music and the movies.

So you agree it's ridiculous? =P

Well, duh. I can sort of see where they're coming from, it could be easy to make the connection with violence in an activity a lot of younger people participate in, and violence in their real lives, but media is created by culture, not the reverse. We create fictions based on the reality we're in, it doesn't really make sense the other way round. I have seen grown damn adults who should know better make death threats to other people online, sometimes even over things like an unfavourable book review. The world's most powerful country starts wars over oil. Some people are even saying "If the principal had had a gun, this wouldn't have happened." This is considered acceptable behaviour and worldview, but it's killing make-believe zombies that's the problem? I don't think so.

Not to mention the fact that the Westboro Baptist Church is trying to plan a boycott of the Newtown funerals. And this is considered legal. Wow, just when I thought the situation could not get worse there they go sinking to new lows.

Yeah, that sound you hear? That's the sound of me softly beating my head against my desk.

Luciene wrote:You can't change gun attitudes without a little government intervention. Look at the laws for smoking. It's crazy, if you show smoking in a movie, it automatically gets rated R. We have all those pictures of people with holes in their throats on cigarette boxes. You can’t smoke anywhere, etc.

Interesting thing I learned from a documentary I watched recently; in the US, references to sex are much more likely to earn an NC-17 rating (which makes a film basically unmarketable and box office poison) than graphic violence. In Europe it's the other way around... I don't know if something like that matters much in the long run, but it might.

Didier wrote:But other than some exceptions (farmers, hunters, police etc.) guns really aren't necessary. I've heard a lot of pro-gun people say "Criminals will get guns illegally anyway. Gun control is just preventing decent non-criminal people from being able to defend themselves and making it easier for criminals to get away with home-invasions and robberies."

Well yeah, that's true. But even decent, non-criminal people can break down and have lapses in judgement. And most criminals just want your money. If you try and whip out a gun to shoot the guy up, you're just asking for someone to get killed.

I think that's what really bothers me, the people in this debate are trying to divide the world into "dangerous criminals" and "good people," forgetting the fact that a lot of people who do things like this don't have a criminal record.They're acting like there are people everywhere armed and just waiting for the perfect chance to rob and murder them - which simply isn't true. Not to mention it's no excuse for concealed weapons permits.


Wow, sorry for the long angry post: Here's some people actually trying to help. Aww.

Nero wrote:So you agree it's ridiculous? =P

It's not ridiculous, it's a carefully calculated strategy.

FuzzyLobster wrote:Not to mention the fact that the Westboro Baptist Church is trying to plan a boycott of the Newtown funerals. And this is considered legal. Wow, just when I thought the situation could not get worse there they go sinking to new lows.

Yeah, that sound you hear? That's the sound of me softly beating my head against my desk.

You know they're extreme when the KKK start organising counter-protests. You could not make this up.

Also, this guy was a Presidential candidate last time around.

Repeated exposure to virtual violence giving rise to desensitization of actual violence. What's so ridiculous about that?

I mean it's not the root cause or anything, but as a contributing factor, it isn't impossible.

Fuzzy Lobster wrote: Not to mention the fact that the Westboro Baptist Church is trying to plan a boycott of the Newtown funerals. And this is considered legal. Wow, just when I thought the situation could not get worse there they go sinking to new lows.

^o) !!!!!
It's a shame these people don't believe in science. Cause if science could discover time travel, we could send them back to the middle ages where they belong.

It's a relief that homosexuality is a non-issue in Canada. We don't have to deal with people like this

I'm genuinely surprised they haven't been murdered yet tbh.

Reading all that makes me so sick! How does thoughts like blaming the death of 20 kids on gays and secularism even enter people's minds?
Sometimes I just wish I could live in a saner planet. Or on Earth in 2100 or something. If patterns are anything to go by, homophobia and such kinds of religiosity ought to disappear largely by then. But I am not so sure about human stupidity levels decreasing so probably there will be other things to worry about then.

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:Reading all that makes me so sick! How does thoughts like blaming the death of 20 kids on gays and secularism even enter people's minds?
Sometimes I just wish I could live in a saner planet. Or on Earth in 2100 or something. If patterns are anything to go by, homophobia and such kinds of religiosity ought to disappear largely by then. But I am not so sure about human stupidity levels decreasing so probably there will be other things to worry about then.

I dunno about you but that is not going to go away by then. Social issues from centuries ago are still around. Even if they are no longer said aloud by then, people will still be there thinking it, just like there are people who still feel superior in other ways. Slavery ended less than 300 years ago and still issues occur. Before it was blacks have no rights. Now everything IS RACISM IF WE'RE NOT SPECIFICALLY POINTING THEM OUT AS BLACKS!

Which is the exact antithesis of the idea of equal rights. Not inferior, not special. Just regard them as is.

So please. Everybody. EVERYBODY. Not specifically picking on you, N&B. Saying - I give up in humanity. Please. Saying we were better before, or will be better, or that everybody is stupid as hell is the exact opposite of what needs to happen. Honestly talking like that, in my opinion, is more pathetic then any level of stupidity, and just as unproductive.

Didier wrote:Repeated exposure to virtual violence giving rise to desensitization of actual violence. What's so ridiculous about that?

I mean it's not the root cause or anything, but as a contributing factor, it isn't impossible.

Because there's no evidence to support it. It doesn't matter how plausible an idea is if the evidence doesn't support it.

Sentynel wrote:Because there's no evidence to support it. It doesn't matter how plausible an idea is if the evidence doesn't support it.

No evidence?

Evidence.

FuzzyLobster wrote:Interesting thing I learned from a documentary I watched recently; in the US, references to sex are much more likely to earn an NC-17 rating (which makes a film basically unmarketable and box office poison) than graphic violence. In Europe it's the other way around... I don't know if something like that matters much in the long run, but it might.

Make love not war.

Didier wrote:

Sentynel wrote:Because there's no evidence to support it. It doesn't matter how plausible an idea is if the evidence doesn't support it.

No evidence?

Evidence.

Did you read the study you're citing? I did. It It opens with a spiel about all the high school shooters who've played violent video games and refers to the "growing problem of video game violence", which does not to me seem like an unbiased starting point. It's looking at short-term effects (i.e., immediately after playing a game), and can make no reliable claims about any actual long-term changes. Also, a spot of searching reveals a rather interesting court case (PDF warning) from 2005 in which Anderson, one of the authors, gave evidence (the study in question was published in 2001). Here's some excerpts:

wrote:Dr. Anderson testified that playing violent video games is one activity that primes aggressive thoughts and teaches aggressive scripts. ... The research underlying Dr. Anderson's testimony, however, does not support such a stark and sweeping conclusion.
...
(skip several pages of critique of individual studies - pages 8-14)
...
With regard to their conclusions, Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Williams noted that Dr. Anderson not only had failed to cite any peer-reviewed studies that had shown a definitive causal link between violent video game play and aggression, but had also ignored research that reached conflicting conclusions. Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Williams noted that several studies concluded that there was no relationship between these two variables. They also cited studies concluding that in certain instances, there was a negative relationship between violent video game play and aggressive thoughts and behavior (e.g., initial increases in aggression wore off if the individual was allowed to play violent video game for longer period).

Everything other than "had also ignored research that reached conflicting conclusions" in this post is included merely for completeness. If you cherry-pick studies you can show anything you like.

There's lots more in that court judgement, and I highly recommend reading it.

Meanwhile, here's a more recent and much better conducted review of media violence studies: "Results from the current analysis do not support the conclusion that media violence leads to aggressive behavior. It cannot be concluded at this time that media violence presents a significant public health risk."
Relatedly, here are some US crime stats (have a look at youth violence rates since the rise of video games), and here's a US Secret Service report finding 12% of school shooters played violent video games.

^Now THAT, is how to post in a politics thread. Well done
Although I feel like maybe your feelings on this issue are slightly biased due to some personal gaming addictions? =P

But ok, here's the real problem:

1) It is extremely hard to operationally define "aggression". Meaning how do you measure "aggressiveness" in an individual?

2) All these studies that you and I have cited are trying to determine whether there is a causal link between aggression and media/ video game violence. And correlations like these don't actually prove anything. Video game violence might cause aggression. Conversely, aggressive people might seek out violent video games. Or any number of third variables might cause both aggression and an interest in violent video games.

And depending on the operational definition used in these studies, you can either prove or disprove a causal link. Yeah, you can cherry pick research to show whatever point of view you want (That's how Ann Coulter can say that single mothers should give their children up for adoption because 'kids need a father figure or they get messed up, according to statistics' ) but.... isn't that kinda what you're doing too?

I'm just saying, your premise is that there is NO evidence, but there isn't enough experimental scientific evidence (not correlational studies) to make a conclusion either way. It's still an open debate, with no sweeping consensus among the scientific community.

Didier wrote:your premise is that there is NO evidence, but there isn't enough experimental scientific evidence (not correlational studies) to make a conclusion either way. It's still an open debate, with no sweeping consensus among the scientific community.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, because you seem to be saying "you're saying there's no evidence, but really there's no evidence!"? There is no support in the literature, as demonstrated by the recent systematic review (the point of which is that it's a fair search of the literature, conducted in a thorough, documented, replicable manner, thus avoiding cherry-picking issues) I posted, for the idea that video games cause violence.

It's conceivable that an effect will start to emerge after further studies, but this has been an area of active research for 30 years, and violent media in general for longer. Even if there exists an effect, for it not to be supported by the current evidence limits the possible strength to the point of insignificance. I remind you that violent crime rates have been falling since the massive rise of video games' popularity.

I'm also not entirely sure why you're bringing up correlation vs causation. Correlation does not imply causation, but lack of correlation certainly does imply lack of causation!

^Awk.
I meant: your premise is that there is NO evidence that supports the media violence-aggression theory, but the experimental scientific evidence isn't able to come to any firm conclusions either way. It's still an open debate etc. etc.
Just because what research there is arrives at murky conclusions doesn't mean your argument wins by default.

Statistics like these:

Sentynel wrote: I remind you that violent crime rates have been falling since the massive rise of video games' popularity.

are nice and all, but it's incorrect to infer that violent crime rates have been falling because of video games' popularity. Hundreds of different variables are at play there.



And another note:

Nero wrote:Saying that everybody is stupid as hell is the exact opposite of what needs to happen

Everybody is stupid as hell.


True story

Didier wrote:Just because what research there is arrives at murky conclusions doesn't mean your argument wins by default.

yeah it does, you have the burden of proof

Didier wrote:Statistics like these:

Sentynel wrote: I remind you that violent crime rates have been falling since the massive rise of video games' popularity.

are nice and all, but it's incorrect to infer that violent crime rates have been falling because of video games' popularity. Hundreds of different variables are at play there.

Er, please point out where I claimed that violent crime rates have been falling *because* of video games' popularity? All I said was, if violent video games were causing some sort of epidemic of violence, as claimed by, for example, the NRA, we might expect to see some evidence of said epidemic of violence, which there is not.

Captain Internets wrote:yeah it does, you have the burden of proof

This. Evidence must support the alternate hypothesis, or the null hypothesis is accepted.

If I had to guess it's not the violent images on the screen itself. It's the fact that there is an increased amount of people unable to develop empathy while watching/playing said movies/games.

For example: to compare the United States and Japan. I may be wrong, but I'd take a guess the level of rampant violence depicted are within the same ballpark. The US has a lot of different ethnic/cultural/etc groups and as a culture reveres dominance and individuality. Thus it's easier to walk outside and view others as an 'other' being that you can't connect with on an individual level. Wheras in Japan, the 'others' are outside its' island and citizens are more 'community based.' Thus individuals have an easier ability to connect with 'strangers' and can even comfortably sleep outside in public without fear.

If you are playing Grand Theft Auto with a group of friends, you show signs of wishing and being able to connect with like-minded people, and are less likely to feel a need to shoot at random. If you have poor social skills and are bullied and alone in school, coupled with mental illness that probably contributes to your poor social skills, it would be far easier for you to be able to rampantly pull the trigger.

Didier wrote:And another note:

Nero wrote:Saying that everybody is stupid as hell is the exact opposite of what needs to happen

Everybody is stupid as hell.


True story

It is very true. Not very helpful to muse about it.

Also, I forgot to answer you question earlier, it is ridiculous that senators and governors place banning video games as one of the highest priorities. Instead of, oh I don't know, the fact that the ones who take the violence in the game and translate it to school children are easily mentally ill.

Which is the main issue behind all this. But no. Let's duck behind video games.

That is what is ridiculous.