Violence and Video Games

[eclipse]

In some cases it has the ability to incite violence. Not every aggresive person plays a violent video game as an outlet.

We humans don't always act as predicted, so it's hard to say if the possibility of inciting violence outweighs the possibility of venting it. This would make a very interesting (and morally questionable) experiment.

[lolDeath]

Video games, TV, music, movies, gas prices, religion, shoelaces, bubblegum, and pretty much everything else you can imagine can cause violence under the right circumstances. Does it mean we should ban everything so that there will be fewer things to excite or annoy people? I don't think so. Games are blamed for violence in the same way that Marylin Manson was for Columbine, shitty parents just don't want to admit that they are shitty parents or regular parents who neglected to get their kids help.

Don't hate the game, hate the player.

[Malexis]

Video games, TV, music, movies, gas prices, religion, shoelaces, bubblegum, and pretty much everything else you can imagine can cause violence under the right circumstances. Does it mean we should ban everything so that there will be fewer things to excite or annoy people? I don't think so. Games are blamed for violence in the same way that Marylin Manson was for Columbine, shitty parents just don't want to admit that they are shitty parents or regular parents who neglected to get their kids help.

Don't hate the game, hate the player.

I find that once again the words have been ripped out of my innocent little throat and shoved into Death's monitor...

[Crystal Shards]

I know this is super, super old, but I recently wrote an article on this and I think it articulates the point I was trying to make a lot better than when I made it here (especially since people kept sidetracking me from what I was actually trying to say (beside playing devil's advocate)). If this is unacceptable necroposting, feel free to delete this or something. I won't be offended.

[Nightmare]

No deletion necessary, just a verbal.

I would lock this topic otherwise, but others may want to discuss that article, so I'll leave it open.

[I.M. Gei]

Overall, do you personally think video games promote violence or is it just parents blaming outside factors for their own bad parenting?

P.S. Jack Thompson is a douche...

I think it's just parents unwilling to blame themselves for their own incompetence, and thus they have to find scapegoats. I mean, you don't see Japanese kids running around and massacring people with massive swords, for instance.

[Original Alear]

I think it's just parents unwilling to blame themselves for their own incompetence, and thus they have to find scapegoats. I mean, you don't see Japanese kids running around and massacring people with massive swords, for instance.

Right, but there are lots of child rapists in Japan. Read the Japanese news, they're in there all the time...

(srsly, a post of that quality doesn't belong in a forum labeled serious discussion. Better in far from the forest. A lot of us on here are japan nerds, we know enough about Japan to see when someone else is being an idiot.)

Edited June 14, 2011 by SeverIan

[I.M. Gei]

...=/ if you say so...

[Original Alear]

...=/ if you say so...

Well, I'm not saying so, I'm typing so...

[Raven]

The topic I chose for my dissertation in my final year of Uni (which starts this Sep/Oct) is basically how violence in video games affects people (people who are 18+ to make things easier for me). This topic will be most useful.

[Anouleth]

I think it's just parents unwilling to blame themselves for their own incompetence, and thus they have to find scapegoats. I mean, you don't see Japanese kids running around and massacring people with massive swords, for instance.

That's a strawman argument. Obviously, children aren't going to directly imitate exactly what they see in computer games, but there's no question that the games you play and the environment you grow up in has an effect on what kind of person you are. The question is how great that effect is and whether violent video games have such a negative effect that they should be toned down, which I think is not true.

And yet, according to the CDC, youth violence has declined since 1993 and levelled off since about 1999. The number of drivers aged 16 or 17 that have been involved in fatal crashes is declining as well, which is the opposite of what you would imagine if people are going out there and emulating games like Grand Theft Auto and Burnout.

That doesn't really mean much. There are many factors at play in national crime statistics: demographic, economic, and cultural, and to suggest that computer games aren't an issue just because they happened to coincide with a drop in crime is wrong.

[Fire Emblem Addict]

Hmm I don't really see a reason to put video games in its own little category here. All types of fictional material may contribute to violence in children, including TV shows, movies, or even novels. Since it would be impractical and overkill for parents to completely forbid their children from exposure to any type of fictional material, it is up to the parents to educate their kids and make them realize that they're just stories. Enjoyable stories that might seem more interesting than reality -- but stories nonetheless.

[Celice]

I think the issue which is evident is that things like media are perceived to be controllable. Whereas most other things are not. For some odd reason there is an attachment, then, to stopping a possible exposure of thought or action simply because it can be controlled somewhat. Attention is given to these specifics, rather than the issue at large, or other things which can induce behaviour... like everything in existence. But not many want to try and tackle "the burden of existence." They'll call it normalcy, or say it can't be helped. It no longer is something to worry over, despite that "it," whatever this other it is, equally slants people into certain behaviour.

The targets are simply things which appear tangible. Alongside this issue of only giving importance and worry to certain biased things, you also have people who refuse to put themselves at any blame. Since we're all molded by external and internal forces, and by anything, in entirely unique ways, it's not so clear-cut as blocking some things and allowing others. It's an organic matter. That's not so easy to access either. It's easier to just say universally some things definitely should be taboo and others, not. Categorizing media as violent influences is just one of these issues: it's "too hard" to be honest and globally say it can, but not always, and go from there. It's easier for people to understand if it's blindly thrown into categorization, regardless of its truthiness.

[Crystal Shards]

That doesn't really mean much. There are many factors at play in national crime statistics: demographic, economic, and cultural, and to suggest that computer games aren't an issue just because they happened to coincide with a drop in crime is wrong.

I don't think you quite understood my point. I never said that computer games aren't an issue, nor did I say that they alone would be the cause of an increase, which is what Jack Thompson and his cronies often argue. I was simply saying that there isn't strong evidence that the more violent video games get, the worse kids are doing as far as crime, which is an argument I see often. So yeah, it does mean much for me to point that out.

And yes, of course there are other factors involved in crime. That's exactly my point, lol. I clearly included that as well, when I discussed the Surgeon General's report on school shootings, and in my conclusion.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Crystal Shards

[Frosty]

I have read your article roughly around yesterday, and I have to agree with it.

Who says video games are evil, it's a form of art, you enter it's world, you weave it's story and form the climax and the grand ending itself, nuff said.

PROUD GAMER FTW!

Edited June 15, 2011 by Frostbite

[Magical CC]

Right, but there are lots of child rapists in Japan. Read the Japanese news, they're in there all the time...

(srsly, a post of that quality doesn't belong in a forum labeled serious discussion. Better in far from the forest. A lot of us on here are japan nerds, we know enough about Japan to see when someone else is being an idiot.)

Two guys convicted for raping said that they did it because they wanted to try to do the stuff in the porno movie they have just watched. I'd spit on their face if I was the judge, they are 22 years old, they are not that young to blame on something like that anymore. People need scapegoat, that's all. They will try to blame on anything to make them less guilty even if it's the most ridiculous things. It's not the parents that blame on the things they hate (video games, for example), it's the social!

Japan failed to stuff moral into their people, especially the young ones. We all known that their morals as common are at the bottom for a while, it's also what happen in many Asian country, inclue my country.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Rathalos Sulley

[Mikethfc]

Japan failed to stuff moral into their people, especially the young ones. We all known that their morals as common are at the bottom for a while, it's also what happen in many Asian country, inclue my country.

I'm sorry I didn't get the newsletter saying today was make a stupid generalisation day.

Anyway most of my beliefs on this have already been stated, games, movies etc. do have an impact of some sort. I may be being presumptious but I reckon most people on here who has seen a zombie film have thought of some sort of zombie plan. BUT that's a very different circumstance as the focus is on how you would survive rather than if you stole a police car and a gun how many civilians could you kill.

Like Crystal Shards? said, there has to be some pre-existing psychological damage first for somebody to want to bite off a bat's head after listening to Black Sabbath or re-enact GTA.

Only thing that did surprise me is that nobody mentioned Jamie Bulger, maybe it didn't get that much coverage overseas.

[Anouleth]

I don't think you quite understood my point. I never said that computer games aren't an issue, nor did I say that they alone would be the cause of an increase, which is what Jack Thompson and his cronies often argue. I was simply saying that there isn't strong evidence that the more violent video games get, the worse kids are doing as far as crime, which is an argument I see often. So yeah, it does mean much for me to point that out.

And yes, of course there are other factors involved in crime. That's exactly my point, lol. I clearly included that as well, when I discussed the Surgeon General's report on school shootings, and in my conclusion.

The point is that the implication of your statement was that the drop in crime was evidence against 'video games cause crime', when it isn't evidence for or against it.

[Crystal Shards]

The point is that the implication of your statement was that the drop in crime was evidence against 'video games cause crime', when it isn't evidence for or against it.

I never said it was evidence against it, I said it's hard to say that video games cause violence when there has been a drop. There's a difference between pointing out a certain phenomenon is against our expectations and saying a phenomenon occurring is clear evidence for one thing or another.

[Defeatist Elitist]

The point is that the implication of your statement was that the drop in crime was evidence against 'video games cause crime', when it isn't evidence for or against it.

Well it sort of is evidence against it.

If violent video games DID lead to violent behaviour, then we would most likely see a correlation between these two. Now, seeing the correlation would not mean we could assume there was causation, but it does generally go the other way, i.e. causation generally means there will be correlation. Because there is no correlation whatsoever between the two, it would suggest that there is no causation.

[Esau of Isaac]

I never said it was evidence against it, I said it's hard to say that video games cause violence when there has been a drop. There's a difference between pointing out a certain phenomenon is against our expectations and saying a phenomenon occurring is clear evidence for one thing or another.

Though one could claim that violence related to videogaming stymied the lowering crime rate, and that without them it would be still lower. Either way, I do agree that using general crime statistics to argue towards or against such a very isolated and specific category is inefficient.

[Crystal Shards]

Though one could claim that violence related to videogaming stymied the lowering crime rate, and that without them it would be still lower. Either way, I do agree that using general crime statistics to argue towards or against such a very isolated and specific category is inefficient.

One could argue that, yes, and I'm not saying you can't make that argument, but you'd have a hell of an argument to make considering the, I dunno, other stuff I talked about in the article. Funny how that's the one line people look at, when that's a 2000+ word article with other supporting evidence AND I'm not even saying video games can't ever be a problem. Yes, that's one line, but it's also just used as a "this should make us ask questions about the claims people make" comment rather than evidence for ANYTHING. Yeah, it's a supporting argument, but the argument in question is whether we should buy these studies that come out and generalize from them. I don't think we can. I don't think we should. That was the entire point of the article.

[Original Alear]

One could argue that, yes, and I'm not saying you can't make that argument, but you'd have a hell of an argument to make considering the, I dunno, other stuff I talked about in the article. Funny how that's the one line people look at, when that's a 2000+ word article with other supporting evidence AND I'm not even saying video games can't ever be a problem. Yes, that's one line, but it's also just used as a "this should make us ask questions about the claims people make" comment rather than evidence for ANYTHING. Yeah, it's a supporting argument, but the argument in question is whether we should buy these studies that come out and generalize from them. I don't think we can. I don't think we should. That was the entire point of the article.

Yes, that was absolutely the point of the article. But the author still wrote quite a large number of words trying to persuade us to his/her point of view. So, what does that tell us about what the author wants us to think about video games?

[Crystal Shards]

Yes, that was absolutely the point of the article. But the author still wrote quite a large number of words trying to persuade us to his/her point of view. So, what does that tell us about what the author wants us to think about video games?

To think about what you're reading instead of just saying, "Oh well this study says this so that obviously means it's 100% true in all cases," which is what usually happens when this topic is brought up.

[Quintessence]

Video games may contain violence in different ways and degrees, but in my opinion, it's totally ridiculous to say "video games cause violence". It's not such, we humans are the ones that create violence and we need some sort of source to express it and manifest it. If arguments such as "video games produce violence" "stand for real", then, we humans are just passive beings, receptive to tons of influences, and, at last it nullifies our will. Willpower is the main motor for us to act and it is constantly being influenced, but when such forces come, we must stay firm and strong, and battle them with common sense and temperance. At last, the decision of allowing violence is ours, and there's no direct involvement of anything because everything is on our minds and education; and as such, I don't agree video games have direct responsibility of causing violence, since violence has been a constant feature during humankind existence.