Dear Rockstar: Stop being assholes. Signed, Jess.

[Arcade Antics]

Oh come on, Antics. They're getting these games from somewhere. They're not just dropping out of the sky and into their hands.

Somewhere = parents. Sky = parents. There's a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with retail stores "ignoring" ratings. Hell, I've even seen clerks POINT THE RATINGS OUT to parents. And you know what? They buy the game anyway. :)


Part of the problem is that adults just don't give a crap what their children are playing. They seem to think that everything is fair game despite the rating on the box, because hey, they're just video games.Well, things aren't that simple anymore. I'll say it again... the ratings need to be taken more seriously.

Parents can ignore whatever they want to. Retail stores can't - they get fined, sued, employees get fired, etc. So your complaint should go to the parents of all children, not to the retail outlets. Retail outlets are doing their jobs. Parents may or may not be doing their jobs, but I think you're fighting a losing battle by trying to convince parents to suddenly notice (and give a crap about) the game ratings.

[Ed Oscuro]

Why don't people get it? Of course that's all true. Jeez @_@

[Oobgarm]

Oh come on, Antics. They're getting these games from somewhere. They're not just dropping out of the sky and into their hands.

Somewhere = parents. Sky = parents. There's a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with retail stores "ignoring" ratings. Hell, I've even seen clerks POINT THE RATINGS OUT to parents. And you know what? They buy the game anyway. :)

He speaks the truth here. I can't count the number of times I've had parents still buy their kids M-rated games when it's blatantly obvious that their hyper-active screaming child does NOT need to be playing them.

I used to scoff at parents who enforced the ratings system with their kids, but now I applaud those who do.

It's there for a f'n reason. Adhere to it. If you don't, then don't point the blame at everyone else when it should be squarely placed on you.

[Aswald]

The glorification of evil.

You'll notice that in Grand Theft Auto you play a murdererous criminal, rather than a cop or even a vigilante out to destroy the evil.

Hell, these days the "hero" is often no better than the criminal!


As for ratings and enforcement, there seems to be something many of you are overlooking: these games soon end up in second-hand stores, and once there, ANYONE can buy them.

[Arcade Antics]

As for ratings and enforcement, there seems to be something many of you are overlooking: these games soon end up in second-hand stores, and once there, ANYONE can buy them.

Example?

[Ed Oscuro]

As for ratings and enforcement, there seems to be something many of you are overlooking: these games soon end up in second-hand stores, and once there, ANYONE can buy them.

Example?

Again that's where parents should be watching their kids. eeh.

[Oobgarm]

As for ratings and enforcement, there seems to be something many of you are overlooking: these games soon end up in second-hand stores, and once there, ANYONE can buy them.

Maybe at a pawn shop/thrift/flea, but not at a major retailer like EB or Gamestop.

[Aswald]

The 3 second-hand stores within 12 miles of me selling ANY kind of game. I've already seen at least one copy of GTA on the shelf.

No ColecoVision stuff, though...

[Arcade Antics]

Aswald - are you using "second-hand stores" in place of "second hand game stores" or just general "thrift stores" and the like (Salvation Army, Goodwill, etc.) Game stores adhere to the ratings.

Either way, you don't run into many unescorted kids in a pawn shop, or a thrift shop, and I could count the number of GTAIII discs I've seen in thrifts on zero hands. But I'll just reiterate what Ed said here:


Again that's where parents should be watching their kids. eeh.

[Aswald]

Thrift stores owned by "some guy." We don't have second-hand "video stores" around here.

I agree on the parent part, but it often isn't happening. That's the sad, but all-too-true, reality. So what fills the void?

[Ed Oscuro]

That's the question nobody can answer.

[ManekiNeko]

Aswald - are you using "second-hand stores" in place of "second hand game stores" or just general "thrift stores" and the like (Salvation Army, Goodwill, etc.) Game stores adhere to the ratings.

Either way, you don't run into many unescorted kids in a pawn shop, or a thrift shop, and I could count the number of GTAIII discs I've seen in thrifts on zero hands. But I'll just reiterate what Ed said here:


Again that's where parents should be watching their kids. eeh.

In my area alone, I watched a Goodwill sell one copy of Grand Theft Auto III, and several copies of Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance.
Goodwill stores are a little weird these days. You're more likely to find new video games there than old ones, possibly because retail stores can get a tax break by donating surplus stock to Goodwill.

JR

[Oobgarm]

I would find it a might odd, though, that retailers are dumping off "overstock" of some of the biggest titles of last year, which have both gone to the "Greatest Hits" line.

[lendelin]

:) Ok, after you supporters of GTA3 trashing

- ignored every substantial argument (except for Ed Oscuro),

- compared cultural influences on clothing and fashion (tertiary morals and values) to killing and murder (primary morals and values),

- don't care about empirical studies which go right into the center of the problem and away from selective anecdotal evidence,

- ignore the fact that crime rates for teens decreased in the last thirty years,

- ignored the fact that school shootings happened in the 70s and decreased also in the last thirty years,

- expressed a lot of uncomfortable feelings, and a lot of "somehows" (somehow it's not right, somehow it must have an influnce on kids, somehow it translates into behavior, somehow it might lead to crimes)

- and try to explain crime and murder, which is as old as humankind, with videogames reflecting a violent pop-culture of the 9os,

....I have to ask you this, ManekiNeko, Aswald, and Ed Oscuro: what would you propose to remedy the situation? This is not a rhetorical Q, I'm serious, what would you propose when it comes to violent videogames today? What should be done? Obviously, according to you, violent games have an enormous bad influence on children, teenagers, and adults.

What should be done? What's the remedy?

[ManekiNeko]

Stronger enforcement of the ratings. They're there for a reason... it's time people used them.
That is all.

JR

[lendelin]

Stronger enforcement of the ratings. They're there for a reason... it's time people used them.
That is all.

JR

That's it?? That's all?? How about the substantial arguments against it which were already posted? Be more specific, HOW would you enforce the ratings stronger???

[ManekiNeko]

I give you an answer and you browbeat me for it. Makes me wonder why I even bothered to open my mouth in the first place.
OK, how's this? There should be a stronger push by the ISDA to help people recognize the labels on the games and understand their purpose. There should be large signs outside every game store with an explanation of the ratings. I've heard some advertising that helps explain the ratings... let's hear more of it. Finally, the president of the ISDA should publicly acknowledge that the industry has changed, and that some games aren't appropriate for all audiences.

JR

[lendelin]

I give you an answer and you browbeat me for it. Makes me wonder why I even bothered to open my mouth in the first place.
OK, how's this? There should be a stronger push by the ISDA to help people recognize the labels on the games and understand their purpose. There should be large signs outside every game store with an explanation of the ratings. I've heard some advertising that helps explain the ratings... let's hear more of it. Finally, the president of the ISDA should publicly acknowledge that the industry has changed, and that some games aren't appropriate for all audiences.

JR

Ok, everything a bit stronger which is already there. That doesn't change a thing. A 16 year old can still get a GTA3, might be even more attarcted to play the game becasue it's a bit clearer now that M games are for 17 yr olds and older. With these proposals, nothing changes.

What should be done?

[YoshiM]

Like Lendelin said, store can enforce the rating more but that isn't the means to the end. It's a deterrent for some but just a minor obstacle for others. Okay so retailers enforce it hard core. Game shops enforce it hard core. What about the other stores like (as mentioned before) pawn shops, goodwill/thrift stores, flea markets, garage salers, Internet sellers and online auction houses? And another question, who would enforce the enforcers?

The only real way is to lock the questionable games away from everyone's eyes, like shops used to do with the 2600 Mystique games. Then remove or tone down the advertisements. Thing is this effect will probably trickle into videos as the game industry will be up in arms over this treatment so your R rated movies will then be locked away. Then your music. Then your favorite horror novels. I'm bending things to the illogical extreme again but the real way to fix the problem WILL eventually cascade into all other forms of entertainment and that would just suck for ALL of us.

The stores aren't here to teach morality and values. They are here to sell stuff. Some restrict or censor media (like Wal-Mart with music) so that they don't piss off their primary customer: families. Wal-Mart would probably "love" to not sell GTA 3 but green paper talks louder than inner morality to corporate suits. It's the sad truth.

Now if people are really serious about this, start a local campaign. Go to your neighborhood stores and talk with managers about this issue. Offer to write up flyers or posters describing the IDSA ratings. Ask them if they "card" for M rated games. Write an article for your local paper describing how the ratings should be used. Instead of wanting the government to take action, empower yourself, it's your community. See if you can do surveys at the mall and ask kids and their parents what game they bought and if it's M rated do the parents know what that means? A crackdown isn't going to stop the games but education will be a start. And as GI Joe said: "Knowing is half the battle." Armed with the knowledge it'll be up to the parents to decide what little Buckner is playing.

[Aswald]

Lendelin, yours are the pseudo-sophisticated arguments I remember from the 1970s- just before the crime wave of the late 1970s and 1980s. I guess, according to you, the massive murder rates were just "anecdotal."

Yes, I do compare clothing and murder, because it all stems from the same thing- outside influences. Look at the murderous tyrannies of the past; humans can easily be programmed to kill, as easily as they can be programmed to wear clothes. How often haven't we murdered one another "in the name of God," even though every religion (major) preaches against killing? We are NOT the sophisticated creatures you think we are. In the 1980s, Saddam Hussein, even with the reports of his cruelty, was our friend. It was all right.

Then, in 1990, suddenly the government told us he was bad. Lo and behold, people pulled a 180, and now he was bad.

Even in the 1950s the whole idea of manipulating people was detailed in a book called "The Hidden Persuaders." Today the technology is far more sophisticated.

Today kids are fed a non-stop diet of violence. That's the point I've been trying to make: IT'S NON-STOP. Television, Radio, Video Games, all in graphic detail, it never lets up, one's mind isn't given a break, a chance to regroup and actually consider anything. And today it's made out to be hip or no big deal. "Kill Bill" is the biggest piece of garbage ever. It makes "Cobra" look like MENSA material. There's no real plot, no character interaction, nothing- except lots and lots of graphic violence. There's never any consequences from any of it. "Saving Private Ryan" was more terrifying, but that was the point- the violence was made out to be horrifying and filled with terrible consequences; it was one of the few war movies to actually give you an idea- emotionally- of how it must have been to have been at that battle; you never looked at it the same way again. One reason it was so shocking to so many was that it was anti-modern: the violence wasn't "cool," but something realistically portrayed. It was a complete turnaround from most movies today, and probably caught many people by surprise.

In 1982 the movie "The Secret of NIMH" had several scenes of violence: The murder of Nicodemus by Jenner, who then tried to kill Mrs. Brisby- but was killed himself by Justin (sword fight) and his henchman(rat?), the latter having been stabbed by Jenner when he turned against his boss. If you've ever seen the movie you'll notice that this was handled with impact and dignity; an animated movie with cartoon rodents had far more depth and thought on this than most current live-action movies. That's part of the problem- the casual, so-what attitude everything is being treated with.

And it's only getting worse. Your arguments ignore several things that have been happening: the increase in mindless male-on-female violence (check my earlier reply for more details), the decrease in even basic consideration, replaced by a 1990s scowling attitude. It's all a helluva lot different than when I was a kid in the 1970s, and believe me, it's NOT for the better.

The problem with many of those idiot "experts" is that they are, as usual, trying to find one specific cause when in fact the problem is coming from everywhere. No, they're not going to prove that GTA is to blame for what's going on today, because it is only one part of the problem. No single part will do it- it's everything, non-stop, combined that's different from the past.

[ManekiNeko]

I give you an answer and you browbeat me for it. Makes me wonder why I even bothered to open my mouth in the first place.
OK, how's this? There should be a stronger push by the ISDA to help people recognize the labels on the games and understand their purpose. There should be large signs outside every game store with an explanation of the ratings. I've heard some advertising that helps explain the ratings... let's hear more of it. Finally, the president of the ISDA should publicly acknowledge that the industry has changed, and that some games aren't appropriate for all audiences.

JR

Ok, everything a bit stronger which is already there. That doesn't change a thing. A 16 year old can still get a GTA3, might be even more attarcted to play the game becasue it's a bit clearer now that M games are for 17 yr olds and older. With these proposals, nothing changes.

What should be done?

How many times do I have to answer this question before you'll stop badgering me? Once should have been enough.
From now on, you'll just have to be satisfied with Aswald's responses (which are excellent, by the way. Well done, Aswald).

JR

[zmweasel]

N/A

[Ed Oscuro]

....I have to ask you this, ManekiNeko, Aswald, and Ed Oscuro: what would you propose to remedy the situation? This is not a rhetorical Q, I'm serious, what would you propose when it comes to violent videogames today? What should be done? Obviously, according to you, violent games have an enormous bad influence on children, teenagers, and adults.

I don't think, and my latest comments haven't suggested, that this is the case. They're just indicative of the shitty morals far too many people have.

I honestly don't think this newest Rockstar game will be handled quite as "tactlessly" as some might expect; I think there's room for some good thoughtful consideration of the character.

Personally, all that doesn't matter to a kid since it's still just "Aaw gnarly!" or whatever it is we say these days (and I'm not THAT long out of high school either ;P) and it's cheap violence.

There's really no answer except that parents need to take responsibility, and I said exactly that earlier.

[lendelin]

I give you an answer and you browbeat me for it. Makes me wonder why I even bothered to open my mouth in the first place.
OK, how's this? There should be a stronger push by the ISDA to help people recognize the labels on the games and understand their purpose. There should be large signs outside every game store with an explanation of the ratings. I've heard some advertising that helps explain the ratings... let's hear more of it. Finally, the president of the ISDA should publicly acknowledge that the industry has changed, and that some games aren't appropriate for all audiences.

JR

Ok, everything a bit stronger which is already there. That doesn't change a thing. A 16 year old can still get a GTA3, might be even more attarcted to play the game becasue it's a bit clearer now that M games are for 17 yr olds and older. With these proposals, nothing changes.

What should be done?

How many times do I have to answer this question before you'll stop badgering me? Once should have been enough.
From now on, you'll just have to be satisfied with Aswald's responses (which are excellent, by the way. Well done, Aswald).

JR

I'm not interested in and never intended "badgering" your opinion; on the contrary, I was interested in your opinion and asked you to be more specific.

if you perceived it as badgering, then I apologize, that wasn't my intent at all.

To clarify it, I don't take discussions like this very serious, I just genuinly enjoy discourse. I went through a lot of discussions, and there was only one discussion which had an effect on my stomache, and that was a panel discussion with one right-wing nut and one neo-Nazi. That was tough. :) otherwise, I'm very relaxed when it comes to exchanging arguments.

[lendelin]

Aswald, I'm as concerned as you are about crime, and with a lot of things you describe about our pop culture I agree; and I feel uncomfortable with it as you do.

I'm 45 years old, I was politically aware at the end of the 60s, I saw political fads come and go, I saw hairstyles come and go, I saw TV in it's innocent infancy (in Germany) and I see today cable TV, I saw the Beatles and Rolling Stones replaced by Brittany Spears, (what a comparison, eh? :) I saw the sexual revolution and societal revolution of the 60s and it's good and bad effects and their backlashes, I experienced decent people in my life and indecent ones, I saw the technological optimistic outlook of the 60s and the emergence of environmental issues of the 70s, I saw the optimism of the 60s that societies can be designed and how wonderful government programs are and their disappointments and backlashes, and I saw a lot of discussions about crimes, too, from emphasizing societal factors of the criminals, their integration into society, to the emphasis of the victim of crimes today.

...and I overlook your remark about "pseudo-sophisticated' arguments, in particular if MY position is the politically incorrect one. :)

About two things we heavily disagree:

1) people are not as easily manipulated as you think, and they aren't merely products of their environment. You can manipulate people, but this assumes a constant bombardment of propaganda which is even difficult in dictatorships, not to mention a free society.

Even the vast majority of people in communist dictatorships felt and knew about the discrepancy between propaganda and reality. When they read in the newspapers how wonderful socialism is and the last 5-year-economic plan was again exceeded, they knew what to think about it when one family member had to stay home from work or a kid didn't go to school the next day in order to stand in line for toilet paper because a store surprisingly got it.

Trust me, compared to the ubiquity of political propaganda, pop culture as you describe it in a free society is nothing. There is mass hysteria, dumbness, political and pop culture nonsense, and there is always a good dose of reality and "normal" life. Don't mix up the flashy, sensational, trivilialised, politicised, and fashionable reality presented in the media dominating the correctives of reality.

You are not manipulated, obviously, I like to think that I'm not easily manipulated as well,, are your friends, your neighbors?

If it were so easy to manipulate people, and if teenagers and adults would fall so easily for what's told to them, the world would look much better; because there is not only dumbness, glorification of violence, indecency, and a lot of other dark aspects in our life. People aren't easily manipulated for the good or bad, because

2) they get a break from dumbness in real life. There is no dominant propaganda about the glorification of violence and war, and even if this were the case, they are correctives a plenty.

A teenager spends most of his time in HS. Do you think HSs in the US glorify violence? Do you think they don't teach children what's right from wrong? Do you think Universities glorify violence and war? International relations isn't my research focus, but I taught a couple of introductions in International Relations, and one of the main topics is war, the causes of war and patterns we can identify. Terribly complex topic, but I can assure you that I never glorified war in a class, and neither do my colleagues. How do you get the idea that "Saving Private Ryan" has less influence than Terminator 3?

I won't go into details of your pop culture description and their simplified effects, it would take too long; but one thing: you have to distinguish between core values (like murder and other crimes) and tertiary values at best (like fashion) which ALWAYS change. It's not as easy to convince teenagers to kill and steal a car as it is to wear long hair, wear hot pants, dress like the Beatles, or show navels like Brittany Spears. I never heard of killings and theft as fashion statements in states dominated by Cristianity.

To be honest, I don't know what triggers decency or indecency in people, not to mention violent crimes. My grandparents and parents told me a lot about decency and indecency in an extreme situation like WWII and a dictatorship, my grandfather was in a concentration camp in 1934 (not an extermination camp which existed only from 1941 on), and was released after six months; not because he was Jewish, but because he was a member of the Social Democratic Party and a member of a State parliament. (Baden)

Let me tell you a little story my mother told me (if you haven't fallen asleep already. :)

My family comes from a little village in the Black Forest area in Southwest Germany, and I grew up there. In 1945 when the French army marched in, my mother, 18 year old, sat in a basement of a house, afraid, nervous; you never knew what to expect in such a chaotic and lawless situation. With her were around 15 women and three men over 70 years old, 3 or 4 children, and a baby in a stroller (I think around a year old).

They heard footsteps, the door opened, and two French soldiers came inside. One of the soldiers saw the baby sleeping in the stroller. He took his gun, aimed at the baby, his finger on the trigger. My mother said from that moment on everything happened in slow motion, she couldn't tell if this soldier aimed at the child 5 seconds or 5 minutes. At one point the mother of the baby started screaming hysterically, she didn't move, she was in shock, just kept screaming. The screaming woke the baby up. Surprisingly, it completely ignored the screaming, and looked over the edge of the stroller straight at the soldier. My mother said the eyes of the baby lit up, and the baby started smiling looking at the gun; my mother told me it was the most innocent and angel-like smile she has ever seen in her entire life.

The soldier who was still standing there aiming at the baby, put his gun down, the gun fell to the floor, and then he broke down and fell to the floor, and started crying. The Germans got up, and one of them spoke a little bit of French, and with lots of gestures and some French it came out that the soldiers' 5 year old son was killed by Germans. He wanted revenge. The French soldier had tears in his eyes, the Germans had tears in their eyes. The soldier apologized to the mother, hugged her, kidssed the baby, the Germans apologized, they shook hands, consoled each other, and the two soldiers left.

Probably every movie director would refuse to put this scene in a movie as too melodramatic.

I asked myself often what triggered in this soldier decency? Why didn't he give into temptation of revenge and hatred, which are very understandable in his situation? Why do some people accept boundaries, limits, have a social conscience, and others (thank goodness a extreme minority) don't have it and commit violent crimes and hurt other human beings?

I could also tell a story of the local party chairmen in 1944 in the village my father grew up, who shot without any pressure and having a choice an 18 year old Canadian parachuter AFTER he was captured. A 5 minute call to the local military commander would have been enough, and the 18 yr old would have survived the war in a POW camp; but he followed the advice of the county PARTY chairmen, he was a true radical "idealist" who believed in Hitler and Fascism as the receipe to save the world. He shot the 18 year old one day after he was captured. The guy had a choice, and he killed the 18 yr old Canadian. Why didn't HE put the gun down, why did he pull the trigger, and the French soldier didn't?

Both my father (who was a soldier in WWII and experienced a lot) and my mother told me that actually in true emergency situations, life and death situations, when you experience truly hunger, most people actually cooperate with each other and help each other out; to make sure, there is indeed brutal, indecent, radical and exploitative behavior, but both said that they were surprised that helping each other and even true altruism (!) were the norm, not the exception.

Of course children have to be taught what's right from wrong, every child at some point kicks another kid, or tries to hit him with a stick; but they experience the parents who are angry at them when they do and experience punishment, and they experience that you don't make a lot of friends if you do. In a baby, a child and a teenager basically everything is there already what's in adults also - from the good, the bad and everything in between, just in much more intense, expressive colors.

I can't explain crime. I don't know if it's social circumstances, economic situations, genes, chemical imbalance, brainwaves, family structures, the amount of love you receive as a child, or all of the above. Crime is perplexing, and violent crimes are perplexing AND disgusting.

Violence and aggression is with us since Adam and Eve, thousands of years old, teenagers shooting their parents, teenagers committing disgusting crimes, teenagers shooting and misusing their peers, but it's not the norm, today less than ever. Violence and aggression will be with us in two hundred years from now when nobody of us is around anymore, and when not a lot of people will even remember videogames.

I can't explain crime and indecent behavior which are thousands of years old; but I know one thing, it can't be explained by something as unimportant as videogames, media content, and fashionable pop culture of the 1990s.

[Aswald]

Unfortunately, your examples of human decency are rare exceptions. If such was the norm, the world would not be in the state that it is. Human nature, is essentially chaotic and evil. The influences we are talking about may not affect me as much, but, as most people here will tell you, I'm an unusual case (some might use more colorful descriptions!).
Actually, the pop culture influence is more dangerous than most, because it's far more subtle. Tyrannical propaganda, like the sledgehammer garbage the former Soviet Union used, is right out in the open- it is, in its own way, honest about what it is.

But what we are dealing with here, today, is the sort of thing Aldous Huxley warned about in "Brave New World." It isn't honest and out in the open like the Soviet propaganda. It's insidious; it's the difference between an enemy who charges you on the battlefield and someone who pretends to be a friend, when in reality he slowly poisons you. Which is worse?

What's more, today's poison is more far-reaching. Even in Nazi Germany, the propaganda could only reach you at certain times; today, it's constant. Schools have corporate propaganda; this went up by more than 1200% (that's not a typo, it's 1200%) during the 1990s. In many ways, that decade was an abberation.
But it's also on radio, music tapes/cds, videogames, hand-helds, computers...today's technology, and it's ready availability, gives the violent garbage of today a reach unheard of even in my childhood days of the 1970s; the first half of my generation really was the last. 24 hours a day, every day, non-stop...it never ends. And I will say it again; murder and fashions are the same, because it's treated the same! Now it's "cool and hip" to have the sado-masochistic violence of "Kill Bill" and many of those sleazy programs of the 1990s; before, it was unheard of, except in certain specific cases. It's become "fashionable." Don't believe me? Want proof? I'll give it to you; just watch what the entertainment industry is going to do now that "Kill Bill" is a success. And watch people just lap it up. What's next? Whatever lowers the damn bar even more.

[zmweasel]

N/A

[lendelin]

Unfortunately, your examples of human decency are rare exceptions. If such was the norm, the world would not be in the state that it is. Human nature, is essentially chaotic and evil. The influences we are talking about may not affect me as much, but, as most people here will tell you, I'm an unusual case (some might use more colorful descriptions!).
Actually, the pop culture influence is more dangerous than most, because it's far more subtle. Tyrannical propaganda, like the sledgehammer garbage the former Soviet Union used, is right out in the open- it is, in its own way, honest about what it is.

But what we are dealing with here, today, is the sort of thing Aldous Huxley warned about in "Brave New World." It isn't honest and out in the open like the Soviet propaganda. It's insidious; it's the difference between an enemy who charges you on the battlefield and someone who pretends to be a friend, when in reality he slowly poisons you. Which is worse?

What's more, today's poison is more far-reaching. Even in Nazi Germany, the propaganda could only reach you at certain times; today, it's constant. Schools have corporate propaganda; this went up by more than 1200% (that's not a typo, it's 1200%) during the 1990s. In many ways, that decade was an abberation.
But it's also on radio, music tapes/cds, videogames, hand-helds, computers...today's technology, and it's ready availability, gives the violent garbage of today a reach unheard of even in my childhood days of the 1970s; the first half of my generation really was the last. 24 hours a day, every day, non-stop...it never ends. And I will say it again; murder and fashions are the same, because it's treated the same! Now it's "cool and hip" to have the sado-masochistic violence of "Kill Bill" and many of those sleazy programs of the 1990s; before, it was unheard of, except in certain specific cases. It's become "fashionable." Don't believe me? Want proof? I'll give it to you; just watch what the entertainment industry is going to do now that "Kill Bill" is a success. And watch people just lap it up. What's next? Whatever lowers the damn bar even more.

Let me be straight, your notions are ideology at best. They are so full of contradictions, are over the clouds arguments, simplifications, and ignoring aspects of reality so it fits into wanna belief, it's not even funny anymore.

1. Your notions are the worst and simplified social constructivist theories I've heard in a long time. They are right out from the 1960s. Individuals are mere constructs of their social environment (which is merely evil as is the nature of human beings), easy programmable from killing to wearing fashionable high heels, and even worse, there is no escape from these influneces from dictatorships to free societies.

According to this nutty-willy ideology EVERY responsibility of individual actions disappear. Every criminal is a victim of society, in particular of the all-powerful (and homogenious!) pop-culture/entertainment industry (which is much more effective than physical brutality and pressure of dictatorships, of course). Every criminal isn't responsible anymore for his actions, the true criminals which have to be sued are Take-Two, Rockstar, record companies, authors, book publishers, movie studios, producers and directors, etc. ... everyone but not the criminals who commit crimes;

....and logically, not even the pop culture and entertainment people can be sued because they are victims of pressure and constant propaganda also.

You know who can be sued, you know who is responsible? YOU, and the privileged very few who are mysteriously resistant of these evil influnces. You know about it, do nothing against it, let these crimes happen, others are the victims, YOU are the only one responsible according to your own notions.

Welcome to the to the worst ideologies of the 1960s.

2. Ask yourself why YOU and your friends (an extreme minority) are resistant against these constant, non-escapable evil bombardment, and the VAST majority (according to you) is not. This might give you a hint of reality.

It might be, however, that you and a minority are more moral, ethical, intelligent, good natured, and strong willed to escape those influences which the vast poor majority of people (including me, and the majority of members of this board) is not.

I can't understand how you can escape those influences. What makes you and a minority so special? How can you be good, others are evil, how can you have insights, others can not, how can you preserve ethics, others can not, aren't you as programmable as the rest of us, how can you have all this in this evil pop culture from which is no escape?

3. Look up crime statistics, don't ignore reality.

4. Look up empirical studies which I addressed. These are done by people who have the same interest as you do, they tried to prove what you like to see, it's right up your alley; and they looked not only at videogames (as you suggested), but also at exposure of teenagers by "violent" TV, movies, and music. Researchers aren't idiots, they look not only at tiny little unimportant sections of a problem. However, they try to get away from speculations, non-knowledge, and try to deliver the beef.

It might be, however, that looking at these studies might ruin your ideological beliefs; however, like for evry biased true beliefer or ideologue, you might find confirmation of your convictions; true believers cultivated the art of selective awareness vs. the broad conflicting spectrum of reality.

I believe in individual responsibility, in the basic ability of adults to make their own decisions, make their own choices, knowing what's good and bad for them; I would never made out of adults unable potentially evil robots who are victims of society, and I certainly will never make of adults children who have to be educated. I believe in the responsibility of individuals AND Rockstar. :) When it comes to children and teenagers, they deserve reasonable protection, like all of us.

[Aswald]

I'll give it to you; just watch what the entertainment industry is going to do now that "Kill Bill" is a success. And watch people just lap it up. What's next? Whatever lowers the damn bar even more.

Kill Bill is far from a runaway hit. In fact, when the marketing costs of both "parts" (though it's really just two halves of a single three-hour movie, divided by Miramax in a shameful marketing tactic) are factored in, it looks to about break even. It suffered a 40% box-office drop in its second weekend, and won't even come close to breaking $100 million, the current milestone for box-office success.

And have you actually SEEN the movie? It's a fantastic flick, and no more gruesome than most of the 20- to 30-year-old grindhouse kung-fu movies from which Tarantino borrowed bits and pieces.

And I note yet ANOTHER reference to Nazis, the third proof of Godwin's Law, and the third time you've lost this debate (unles someone else made the other references -- this thread is so bloody long, I've long since lost track).

-- Z.

No, I haven't seen the movie; the descriptions and commercials assured that I wouldn't put any money towards such a thing. And it's hyped as a success, which is quite enough these days- remember how the dot.com companies were such "successes?" I'm also not saying that it and it alone will make movies more violent, but it will greatly accelerate the process, if only because of yet another case of what the public will accept. For years, the entertainment industry has been trying to find out how far they can go; there doesn't seem to be a limit.

Godwin (if it was a person, or a person behind the name) was an idiot, obviously. So I ignore those so-called "laws." If such says I "lose," well, let such- idiotic babble is meaningless to me. So constantly bringing up Stalin and the former Soviet Union is acceptable, perhaps? If so, I know all I need to about this "Godwin."

I also never said that I was "good." Just different. More honest about it and somewhat more perceptive about things, perhaps, but not "good."

The problem with your fine-sounding talk is the fact that it ignores reality. "Experts" often live in an enclosed environment; back in the 1980s there were "experts" claiming that the crime wave of that time was a myth, and sure enough they had "studies" and "statistics" to prove it. For those who experienced it, and those who had to live in it, it was quite real. There's a reason why there's so much cynicism toward "experts."
Things that happened in the 1990s were abberations. Female violent crime rose sharply; this coincided with violent female pop culture. That's no coincidence, it was too close to be any such thing. People no longer trust authority (with good reason), once-sacred institutions have so much corruption that few really believe in them any longer, and kids' parents/parent (parent) are not doing their jobs, all too often. You can complain about how that shouldn't be, but it is reality. Something has to fill in that gap, and without anything to counteract it, something believable and trusted, the result can only be disaster.

I shudder to think of what the world will be like in another 15 years. As you should. We sure as hell never thought everything would go this far 20 years ago.

[zmweasel]

N/A

[lendelin]

More honest about it and somewhat more perceptive about things, perhaps, but not "good."



eh, just "more honest" and "more perceptive," eh? ...and all the others and I are less honest? I don't think you're more perceptive either, you didn't even perceive shool shootings of the 1980s and 1970s and thought it's a phenomenon of the 1990s only. I wouldn't call that "more perceptive."

Increase of male/female violence in media and in reality? That's absurd.


"Experts" often live in an enclosed environment; back in the 1980s there were "experts" claiming that the crime wave of that time was a myth, and sure enough they had "studies" and "statistics" to prove it.

That's absurd as an argument to discard research. There are dumb experts and researchers, and there are good ones, there are objective researchers, and there are biased ones who have a political agenda.

I looked at research (and quoted it!!), even put links in my posts, which argue in a very similar way you do, however, two substantial classes better than your general statements. I criticized heavily these studies, these "experts," and pointed to severe research problems. Trust me, your mistrust towards "experts" doesn't even come close to mine.

However, you have to KNOW these studies before you criticize them, not enjoy your ignorance and then discard them. Knowledge is good, in combination with common sense it's a powerful tool to make your thinking independent. Your are not independent if you just read ten lines in the newspapers about some study about violent videogames, two days later in the same newspaper parents who claim that a videogame made their 14 year old son steal steal a car, and then link the two. That's the extreme opposite of knowledge and independent thinking...the same goes for the absurd assumption there is crime, and there are violent depictions in games, movies, cartoons, TV, and music, and they are linked, one casuses the other. That's simplistic, uncritical, and a far cry from a substantial argument. In order to make such a claim, you have to dig deeper, MUCH deeper.

Look, it's tiresome if you ignore substantial arguments; you escape constanly to the "big picture." If one segment of your picture is wrong, and then you hop to another one, and it's wrong too, and if the third segemnt of your big picture is proven to be wrong too, then you might ask yourself if the big picture in it's entirety is wrong.

There is no discourse possible if one side states specific substantial arguments, and the other side ignores it, escapes to another aspect and flees into generalizations; this can be repeated endlessly. That's not a discourse, it's a boring business.

Look, stick with one Q, and with one Q only which goes right into the center of the debate, and picks up your notions:

If your assumptions and impressions are right (evil, poisenous pop culture infiltrates subtly and effectively the mind of human beings over time who cannot escape this propaganda, are evil and easy "programmable to kill), how do you explain the fact that the vast majority of human beings, the vast majority of videogamers, and the vast majority of teenage videogamers do not committ crimes in general and in particular violent crimes?

That's a common sense Q and has nothing to do with "expertise." :)

[ianoid]

Well, you guys seem a little deep and intense into this, but here are my hay pennies:

All technology has been viewed with suspicion. The stakes have always been thought to be higher, but senseless murder has always been around, whether or not it made Fox's news at 5, which is, by the way, around only to get viewers. Blood thirsty consumer viewers. Example: Didn't cowboy movies have a detrimental effect on children when they first came out? No reason we should sue their makers as well. Perhaps the Native American population should sue the movie studios for promoting harmful stereotypes? Litigation is no the solution.

Weren't kids dropping bricks on cars from overpasses years ago? Teens are at risk for downright stupid behavior that puts everyone at risk around them.

Shouldn't we sue Activision for the Oklahoma bombing? That Kaboom! game certainly brings light to the bombing schemes. They are to blame!

Really, it's nice to villify the world at large, because it takes blame away from ourselves. But I'm not sure that there's any solution in that. As long as we point fingers away from ourselves, and in particular, award that with money in court, we ignore the real problems, which I would guess might include a)lax firearm laws b)diffusion of personal responsibility (guns that can be gotten) c)lack of adult supervision or involvement in children's lives (for teens, it's questionable whether anybody could help them- parents just don't understand.)

[Aswald]

zmweasel and ianoid, half of my family is Dutch. In the 1930s, they all used to laugh at what was happening in Germany in those days. "Experts" sounded much like your Godwin and his "sophisticated" arguments. It wasn't until the late 1930s that people became concerned, but by then it was too late. As always.
It's always the same with people like you. You say that my Secret of NIMH reference was funny- well, I've got news for you: you are history repeating itself. You sound just like those people did in the 1970s, and the economists of the 1990s with the dot.com fiasco. People like you and Godwin always take on slightly different forms as time goes by, but essentially it's always the same. And the result is always the same: disaster. And, since you seem to place such stock in statistics and studies, my comment on female violent crime is backed by FBI studies.

The reason the likes of Godwin will never "shame" me, aside from the obvious (he's an idiot), is the fact that we have become sick and tired of one thing- we've never been listened to. It's always been done the "other way." We've always been a minority; yet, when things go wrong, the first thing we hear from the likes of you is "why didn't you do some thing about it?" Well, we ARE- we know where the endless diet of violence and such is going to end up, because it's obvious. The cowboy movies of the past were violent, but it also involved heroics. Good vs. Evil. Today, it's violence for the sake of violence. Hey, let's play a game where you (all but rape) and kill hookers, and then get money by murdering storekeepers. Of course that's the same as Gary Cooper standing up to killers in "High Noon," or the drama in "Last Train From Gun Hill." In the former, a shocking moment was when one of the kids playing pretended to kill Gary Cooper's character; shocking, because he was eager to play a criminal.

How do I explain that the majority of people don't do bad things (a questionable statement)? Simple- because the opportunity usually isn't there. People don't steal for fear of punishment, not because of morals. A mugger isn't going to mug someone who's big and maybe armed; this is why most crime victims are weak and relatively defenseless. Someone who enjoys tortuing and killing small animals wasn't going to try it on my 95-pound Rottweiler/Labrador mix; they knew they'd've been torn to pieces (not to mention what I'd've done). I've been hassled at work, until I make it obvious that I'll do something very bad to that person, or at least try (damage will be done)- that person backs off. It's fear and power that keeps humans in line: nothing else. The Church always used the threat of eternal damnnation to keep its followers and converts in line.

But, you two with your posts only prove that it's going to happen again. Just as the crime wave of the 1980s was the result of a previous time, what's going to happen in the near future is the result of today. Quite frankly, if I had the power to make sure that only the likes of you would be affected by it, then I wouldn't care, but, as always, it's not going to work that way.

And yes, I have checked the studies and works of "experts"- from the 1970s. If you look at what they "proved," and what happened in real life afterwards, you'd finally be able to figure out why I tend to regard most such studies with a grain of salt.

But hey, since it's only a game, let's have one in which you molest and kill small children. I'm sure that won't be a big deal, right? And don't say it won't go there- that's what they would've said about South Park and GTA: Vice City 20 years ago.

And I love your comment about parental involvement- another typical feature. You go on about how it SHOULD be; well, reality check time: it isn't happening. And part of the reason was the social theories of "experts," or have you forgotten them saying that latchkey kids were fine; "kids are better able to handle things than you think." Wrong again.

[zmweasel]

N/A

[SpasticFuctard]

As I wade through this topic, all I see is an old Gary Larson strip...

'Blah blah blah blah, Rockstar Games. Blah Blah Blah, Rousseau's social contract chewed up and regurgitated by people who never heard of the man. Blah Blah Blah, Ginger. Blah Blah Blah, Nazis'

Evil is good, long live evil. In keeping with the previous statement, Rockstar games makes me warm to the very core of my dark soul.

SF

[ManekiNeko]

As I wade through this topic, all I see is an old Gary Larson strip...

'Blah blah blah blah, Rockstar Games. Blah Blah Blah, Rousseau's social contract chewed up and regurgitated by people who never heard of the man. Blah Blah Blah, Ginger. Blah Blah Blah, Nazis'

Evil is good, long live evil. In keeping with the previous statement, Rockstar games makes me warm to the very core of my dark soul.

SF

Well, at least we know your nickname fits.

JR

[lendelin]

As I wade through this topic, all I see is an old Gary Larson strip...

'Blah blah blah blah, Rockstar Games. Blah Blah Blah, Rousseau's social contract chewed up and regurgitated by people who never heard of the man. Blah Blah Blah, Ginger. Blah Blah Blah, Nazis'

Evil is good, long live evil. In keeping with the previous statement, Rockstar games makes me warm to the very core of my dark soul.

SF

You know, although I heavily disagree with Aswald and ManeniKo, and called Aswalds notions even a nutty ideology, I actually feel more comfortable with people who are concerned about game content than with people who don't give a damn and say it doesn't matter at all.

After all, we can "play" truly bad things in games in the meantime, and not only that, we can even play the bad guy in games, even a hardcore criminal who kills prostitutes; and this shouldn't be taken lightly when we know that teenagers play these games.

Like so many of us, I find violent crime in reality disgusting, and still have no problems to accept a violent backdrop in videogames when I play games. How is that possible psychologically? What's going on in our little minds when we play those things which affects values completely in conflict with each other?

...and we can't be absolutely sure that it actually translates into behavior. I don't think so at a feeling level (based on past experiences) and a rational level, but concern (even overly concern) is better than indifference.

[lendelin]

How do I explain that the majority of people don't do bad things (a questionable statement)? Simple- because the opportunity usually isn't there. People don't steal for fear of punishment, not because of morals. A mugger isn't going to mug someone who's big and maybe armed; this is why most crime victims are weak and relatively defenseless. Someone who enjoys tortuing and killing small animals wasn't going to try it on my 95-pound Rottweiler/Labrador mix; they knew they'd've been torn to pieces (not to mention what I'd've done). I've been hassled at work, until I make it obvious that I'll do something very bad to that person, or at least try (damage will be done)- that person backs off. It's fear and power that keeps humans in line: nothing else. The Church always used the threat of eternal damnnation to keep its followers and converts in line.



I didn't ask why videogamers don't do just "bad things", I asked why they don't commit crimes and in particular violent crimes.

I disagree with the lack of opportunity, after all, right away I could go and try to rob a bank, or kill someone, or try to steal all PS2 games in a Gamestop.

I also disagree that morals independently existing from fear of punishemnt aren't an obstacle to commit violent crimes, but I guess you suspected that.

Your major notion is absolutely right, and I completely agree. The fear of punishment is a major reason not to commit violent crimes; but you must be shocked now, that's the first time that I heard from you that there is actually something in us (fear of punishment by law or retaliation of the person whom we intend to harm) which prevents crime and keeps us in check!

Let's assume you are right and there are no morals, no compassion, no innate obstacle to kill or harm others, only the fear of punishment. Two Qs:

1. How do you explain that there is still an extreme minority who commit violent crimes and therefore take high-risks or low-risks to get punished? A burglarer, a husband who kills his wife, or the two guys who went onto a shooting spree in Washington DC, they all think they can get away with it and take the risk to get punished; and there are criminals who don't even care if they get punished, want to get puinished, shoot a couple of people and then kill themselves, or commit crimes and don't wear a mask, and don't even try to run away when the police arrives.

2. How would you remedy the situation when it comes to violent videogames? What should be done?

[jdc]

The only thing that bothers me is that Uncle Bob/Daddy/Grandma/Big Brother Jimmy will all buy/rent this game for little 8 year old Billy..."cos' he wants to play it, dammit", or "he sees stuff like this on TV anyways".

There were far too many underage kids playing GTA and Vice City. What's the point of the ESRB ratings if they can't be enforced in order to make sure that minors don't have access to these games?

The irresponsibility of the parents pisses me off.