Incoming anti-game propaganda
one guy said " were teaching kids the opposite message!"
I say "didn't you used to play with toy gunsa and play cowboys and indians when you were a kid?"
Also, The columbine killers are a minority among gamers as you know.
lets see how many points in this documentary we can refute.
I say I played cowboys and indians when I was a kid, but society also didn't give me the freedom to live this out in school or where ever.
Propaganda is very real. Human beings however have something called "free will" that gives them the option of either turning it off, or not "buying" the message, whatever it happens to be, in whole or in part.
The funny thing is, the type of video games I most enjoy are the ones that involve martial arts and/or bladed weapons combat (you know, swords!).
If we use the argument that games "train" and "desensitize" us to violence, well I don't see the follow through (to participation in real life violence) there.
Imagine playing a game where you press buttons and characters on a screen hack each other up with swords and punch and kick each other into the ground.
Now imagine going out in REAL LIFE and hacking somebody to death with a blade, or beating them to death with your bare hands. There would be a MASSIVE difference between this (absolutely sickening) type of violence in the real world vs. in any video game on the market. It doesn't matter if you're swinging a Wiimote around, it's still in no way realistic.
As usual, the idea is that the tiny percentage of undiagnosed psychotics in the world will play a game and get an "idea" to launch off on something dangerous, but that shouldn't stop the rest of the public who has no such problems determining what is socially acceptable behavior (and separating it from fantasy entertainment) from making responsible choices.
Parents? Sure, you should decide what your kids get to watch/consume as long as they are under your roof and your supervision. Teach them right and wrong, and watch/play with them, supervise (you know, be a PARENT).
That, you'd think, would be common sense.
The way I see it, yes, the military does use video games to help train soldiers. However, apart from simulators, games with stuff like hand to hand combat (or even running around and shooting people, infantry style) can never substitute for the real thing. Those games are done to test reflexes and build teamwork (multiplayer games), not to turn ordinary people into bloodthirsty killers, as some might think. The same applies to games as with movies or any other form of consumable media.
Sure, games can increase our adrenaline, but so can a lot of things. It's one thing to get "excited" over something, it's quite another to turn that excitement into violence. Take for example males watching sports. I've witnessed this all my life... guys sitting around a TV set, then turning into wild crazy maniacs when something happens onscreen. Many of these sports involve physical contact. Does that mean a fight is about to happen in real life? Sometimes, but when it does, there's usually also alcohol and/or gambling involved, so you can't blame the sports program or the excitement itself. And we can see other examples, like women sitting around crying over "chick flicks." Media has whatever power we give it.
I know the violence in games is fake (faker than professional wrestling on TV!), but still, there are games I don't have an interest in playing, because of their content (and bottom line, a game has to be fun and have good gameplay).
For every "bad" game that promotes negative stereotypes or glories in something puerile, there are a dozen "good" games that do not.
Anyway, rant over, this sort of thing will always happen because entertainment will always push boundaries in order to provoke interest and make more money, and some crazy person will always do something and people will wonder why and try to seek a quick solution by seeking a scapegoat.
That said, watch the movie, and see what you think.
Thats very well thought out, thanks for taking the time to write that down :thmbup1:
I don't remember playing video games before I was five years old (my earliest memories are watching a cocktail version of Asteroids Deluxe at a restaurant, with the game display in our table... or else playing "KRULL" and having my dad explain the controls to me, then dying three times in rapid succession). But then again kids don't have many memories before that age anyhow.
Still, I think the philosophy that very young children shouldn't watch TV (for fear of it harming their attention spans), I'd say the same thing about playing video games. Even "educational" games might be a problem there, and the same sorts of things they would teach can be done better by one on one with a living breathing human person (kids that age need to learn how to positively interact with others).
If I had kids, that's how I'd teach them anyway.
This may be a topic worthy of it's own thread. They usually start with a game that is hard to defend, then once people get used to a few games getting banned, add a few more things on the list of things that grown men and women are allowed to have.
what will be next? maybe one day we will see the ban of nudity. even nude photography in a non sexual fashion will be out of the question because they will be deemed inappropriate.
then what goes next? we will probably see the ban of violent use of guns. Star wars and Indiana Jones games have violence and shooting, they increase adrenaline. they make one appear more aggressive.
what comes net? there are other forms of violence in video games. we may see the ban of kung-fu, Naruto, Mortal Kombat once all the sword sorcery, and archery games are gone.
and then, one day they will ban any game where we drive above the speed limit. everyone knows if you drive too fast in a video game you are going to do that in real life, so Need For Speed has got to go.
this guy explains it better than I do:
thanks for reading.( i'm not worried about Jack Thompson himself, but other people like him.)
While I hear what you're saying, this is practically a textbook example of the Slippery Slope Fallacy (tm).
"If we let them ban a rape porn 'game'... it'll lead to massive censorship of all entertainment media!"
Reality check: porno games (from the "dating sims" to regular games with gratuitous nudity and sexual themes pasted in) have been around long enough that they're their own sub-genre. This would be like saying if we ban Puzzle games, all games would be banned. Even if we banned all porno games (rather than just this one title), would that really affect most gamers? Or even most porn-enthusiasts for that matter? Like most obviously "adult themed" material, these titles are typically low budget and not found in mainstream retail stores (or mainstream theaters for movies) anyhow. People who want such things will know to look in the "specialty" shops or order direct from the publisher. The stereotypical fear that somehow it'll be sitting on the shelf between "Barbie Makeover" and "Pokemon" is unfounded for that reason.
Jack Thompson is definitely a joke, he's just out to get attention and money by inciting "outrage" to the point of self-parody. But the odd person who hasn't heard of him might be fooled the first time. The only time gamers gotta worry is when its a bunch of big wigs getting into the "censorship" crusade (Senators, wives of Vice Presidents, that sort of thing).
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:00 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.