NationStates Jolt Archive

I have noticed that when everyone complains about media violence, they only complain about the violence portrayed in electronic influences, such as television, radio, video games, etc. Now then, you may remeber the assassination of John Lenon. The man who assassinated him was inspired to do this by a book. Not a television show, not a video game, but by a BOOK. Now then, with this evidence, do you think it is fair that only television, video games, etc. should be blamed for media violence?

(Note that I have nothing against books. In fact, I enjoy books. I'm just saying, it isn't fair that only television and the such are being blamed.)

I have noticed that when everyone complains about media violence, they only complain about the violence portrayed in electronic influences, such as television, radio, video games, etc. Now then, you may remeber the assassination of John Lenon. The man who assassinated him was inspired to do this by a book. Not a television show, not a video game, but by a BOOK. Now then, with this evidence, do you think it is fair that only television, video games, etc. should be blamed for media violence?

(Note that I have nothing against books. In fact, I enjoy books. I'm just saying, it isn't fair that only television and the such are being blamed.)

I dunno, the whole stance seems like crap to me, don't much care what else they add to it...

I have noticed that when everyone complains about media violence, they only complain about the violence portrayed in electronic influences, such as television, radio, video games, etc. Now then, you may remeber the assassination of John Lenon. The man who assassinated him was inspired to do this by a book. Not a television show, not a video game, but by a BOOK. Now then, with this evidence, do you think it is fair that only television, video games, etc. should be blamed for media violence?

(Note that I have nothing against books. In fact, I enjoy books. I'm just saying, it isn't fair that only television and the such are being blamed.)

the thing about TV etc is that they are more accessable, avaliable and more easily interpretated then books. some one who commits a crime after reading a book suggested that person has a more of intellectual/pshycotic/analytical motivation for carrying out the crime.

if that makes sense, prob not

This is the way I look at it, though I know that many people don't agree with my standpoint. Just sayin.

I think that if you're weak-minded enough that you're going to be negatively influenced to hurt somebody based off of the "Violent Media", especially to a possibly fatal extent, then it doesn't matter what medium you're being influenced. I think people just assume that these more weak-minded persons are probably less learned, therefore would be more likely to pick up these tendencies from movies/TV/video games than from books and magazines. Personally, I think that fortification of mind has nothing to do with intellect, and therefore people susceptible to such influences will be from any source.

[/two cents]

Then pray tell... what form of media influenced Hitler? Stalin? Or.. hmn.. Ivan Hoe the Terrible? Mary Queen of Scots? Or.. you klnow, Ghangis Khan had his stone age TV (Flinstones is proof of this... :rolleyes: )

I know, it's a stupid point, but even still...

Then pray tell... what form of media influenced Hitler? Stalin? Or.. hmn.. Ivan Hoe the Terrible? Mary Queen of Scots? Or.. you klnow, Ghangis Khan had his stone age TV (Flinstones is proof of this... :rolleyes: )

I know, it's a stupid point, but even still...
Hitler was influenced by this thing called WWI, a form of LARPing performed on an international scale. It was based on a somewhat modern setting, with machine guns and artillery, except that everyone agreed to use the most inefficient tactics possible.
Stalin was affeccted by a mistranslated series of sketches written by the infamous, fourth Marx Brother: Karl. Regretfully, the combination of a poor German-Russian translation and the generation gap in the humor led to certain misunderstandings on Stalin's part.
Ivan Hoe was influenced by the book that was later thought to have been based on his life. In reality, the book preceded him, and Ivan Hoe was so impressed with the story that he based his life on the titular character (who only shared his name by coincidence).
Mary Queen of Scots and Ghengis Khan? They were just assholes.

Then pray tell... what form of media influenced Hitler? Stalin? Or.. hmn.. Ivan Hoe the Terrible? Mary Queen of Scots? Or.. you klnow, Ghangis Khan had his stone age TV (Flinstones is proof of this... :rolleyes: )

I know, it's a stupid point, but even still...

Ivanhoe the terrible? Ivanhoe yes, Ivan the Terrible, yes, but Ivanhoe the terrible?

hmmmm

there is one particular book that seems to have spawned lots of killing either by war, in ill conceived recruitment, or personal family tragedy

but maybe its best not to mention just which book that is.

hmmmm

there is one particular book that seems to have spawned lots of killing either by war, in ill conceived recruitment, or personal family tragedy

but maybe its best not to mention just which book that is.
Agreed. We should burn every copy.

Wait.

We're both on the same page here, right? Black Beauty, right? I mean, if it's ever too "dangerous" for South Africa, it's worth burning to me.

hmmmm

there is one particular book that seems to have spawned lots of killing either by war, in ill conceived recruitment, or personal family tragedy

but maybe its best not to mention just which book that is.
Tell me. I think its the one that Hitler wrote in prison. Forget the name, but it's translated to "My Struggle". Wait, nevermind, it's "Mine Kampf".

Tell me. I think its the one that Hitler wrote in prison. Forget the name, but it's translated to "My Struggle". Wait, nevermind, it's "Mine Kampf".
Pssst. Ash speaks of the Bible. Everybody knows that Ash hates the Bible. :rolleyes:

Simonist']Pssst. Ash speaks of the Bible. Everybody knows that Ash hates the Bible. :rolleyes:
Oh. Yes, that HAS spawned quite a few to the 99th power of killings. Things called the crusades, witch burnings, mass murder of jews in the Bubonic plague era, and so called "exorcism" of children. Read the thread on the Illinois killings.

I have noticed that when everyone complains about media violence, they only complain about the violence portrayed in electronic influences, such as television, radio, video games, etc. Now then, you may remeber the assassination of John Lenon. The man who assassinated him was inspired to do this by a book. Not a television show, not a video game, but by a BOOK. Now then, with this evidence, do you think it is fair that only television, video games, etc. should be blamed for media violence?

(Note that I have nothing against books. In fact, I enjoy books. I'm just saying, it isn't fair that only television and the such are being blamed.)

Sorry, what? You do know the book he read after he shot Lennon, right?

And, if you do, pray tell what in it influences anyone to kill? (i assume you have read said book)

Sorry, what? You do know the book he read after he shot Lennon, right?

And, if you do, pray tell what in it influences anyone to kill? (i assume you have read said book)
He read it before. I do believe it was "Catcher In The Rye". I read it.

EDIT: Can't find any god damn influences. But can't find any god damn influences in television or video games either.

He read it before. I do believe it was "Catcher In The Rye". I read it.

EDIT: Can't find any god damn influences. But can't find any god damn influences in television or video games either.

Ok, so how is your train of thought:

MAN READS BOOK.

MAN KILLS LENNON.

BOOK INFLUENCED MAN TO KILL LENNON.

Please, please tell me, thats not what you were getting at?

I have noticed that when everyone complains about media violence, they only complain about the violence portrayed in electronic influences, such as television, radio, video games, etc. Now then, you may remeber the assassination of John Lenon. The man who assassinated him was inspired to do this by a book. Not a television show, not a video game, but by a BOOK. Now then, with this evidence, do you think it is fair that only television, video games, etc. should be blamed for media violence?

(Note that I have nothing against books. In fact, I enjoy books. I'm just saying, it isn't fair that only television and the such are being blamed.)

Catcher In the Rye has no real violence in it, so that's a bad example.
You could refer to copycat killings and rapes based on Clockwork Orange, but those seem to have all been based on the movie.

In general, I can agree that books can be as dangerous as movies and film, but they're dangerous in a different way.
Graphic violent scenes in movies desensatise people to violence.
Video games encourage active participation in killings, in various levels of realism. The highter the level of realism, the more potentially dangerous the game is.
Pac-Man is harmless.
Modern first-person shooter games are not harmless. They won't turn normal kids into crazed killers, but they do help people overcome their inherent resistance towards shooting other human beings, and the more graphic the images in the game, the more desensitized the players can become.

Once the US military switched from practicing shooting Bullseye type targets to shooting human sillouette targets, the kill rate rose drastically because we were training our soldiers to shoot at people.
Video games can work the same way.

Ok, so how is your train of thought:

MAN READS BOOK.

MAN KILLS LENNON.

BOOK INFLUENCED MAN TO KILL LENNON.

Please, please tell me, thats not what you were getting at?
Heck, according to the stereotype for kids who play violent video games and then go out and kill people, that's about right.

Heck, according to the stereotype for kids who play violent video games and then go out and kill people, that's about right.

Chapman was obsessed with the book.
So was John Hinckley, Jr.
I think there might be a couple others as well, but I can't remember for sure.

Now then, you may remeber the assassination of John Lenon.
Something I just noticed. No one remembers the "assassination" of John Lenon, because Lenon wasn't assassinated. Kings are assassinated, presidents are assassinated, poncy heirs to the Austrian throne are assassinated, musicians, like Lenon and 2pac, just get their asses capped.

Something I just noticed. No one remembers the "assassination" of John Lenon, because Lenon wasn't assassinated. Kings are assassinated, presidents are assassinated, poncy heirs to the Austrian throne are assassinated, musicians, like Lenon and 2pac, just get their asses capped.
Yeah. That's because according to the upper class, musicians are beasts who don't deserve to be remebered. Talking about this made me remeber one of my most favorite quotes. Joseph Stalin: The death of one man is a tradgedy. The death of millions is stastistic.

Heck, according to the stereotype for kids who play violent video games and then go out and kill people, that's about right.

Yeah...It's probably made up by technophobe-ish fogeys and people that get pwned in a multiplayer game.

Catcher In the Rye has no real violence in it, so that's a bad example.
You could refer to copycat killings and rapes based on Clockwork Orange, but those seem to have all been based on the movie.

In general, I can agree that books can be as dangerous as movies and film, but they're dangerous in a different way.
Graphic violent scenes in movies desensatise people to violence.
Video games encourage active participation in killings, in various levels of realism. The highter the level of realism, the more potentially dangerous the game is.
Pac-Man is harmless.
Modern first-person shooter games are not harmless. They won't turn normal kids into crazed killers, but they do help people overcome their inherent resistance towards shooting other human beings, and the more graphic the images in the game, the more desensitized the players can become.

Once the US military switched from practicing shooting Bullseye type targets to shooting human sillouette targets, the kill rate rose drastically because we were training our soldiers to shoot at people.
Video games can work the same way.

"Graphic" in terms of video game violence usually means ridiculous and over the top, i.e. less desensitizing, as the disconnect is more obvious. Training people to dehumanize entities on a screen and having them dehumanize real people are entirely different things, because the objects on the screen are intentionally designed to be dehumanized. If you've dehumanized a real person, with all the associated challenges, then no matter what your experience with violence you can do whatever you want to them, just as you might to any other nonsentient object. People aren't sensitized or desensitized to violence, they're sensitized or desensitized to others' humanity, and that's something that can just about only happen in real life.

Yeah. That's because according to the upper class, musicians are beasts who don't deserve to be remebered.
You can remember someone without saying they were assassinated, and you can mourn their death without accusing their killer of being an assassin.
Talking about this made me remeber one of my most favorite quotes. Joseph Stalin: The death of one man is a tradgedy. The death of millions is stastistic.
Stalin certainly knew how to keep his statisticians busy, I will give him that.

"Graphic" in terms of video game violence usually means ridiculous and over the top, i.e. less desensitizing, as the disconnect is more obvious. Training people to dehumanize entities on a screen and having them dehumanize real people are entirely different things, because the objects on the screen are intentionally designed to be dehumanized. If you've dehumanized a real person, with all the associated challenges, then no matter what your experience with violence you can do whatever you want to them, just as you might to any other nonsentient object. People aren't sensitized or desensitized to violence, they're sensitized or desensitized to others' humanity, and that's something that can just about only happen in real life.
Yes. For example. I am desensitized to most of the world because I realize how pitiful we humans actually are. Yet we want to act like we are all high and mighty, while in truth, we are just small and insignificant in this universe.

Yes. For example. I am desensitized to most of the world because I realize how pitiful we humans actually are. Yet we want to act like we are all high and mighty, while in truth, we are just small and insignificant in this universe.

Good on ya. You realize how much we suck. Don't believe that required video games.

Good on ya. You realize how much we suck. Don't believe that required video games.
I don't believe it did. I think all it required was a good, hard look at myself, the world, and my life.

I don't believe it did. I think all it required was a good, hard look at myself, the world, and my life.
So, actually, what you figured out is that you are insignifigant and pointless, and then you autmatically assumed everyone else shared your problems.
As a Solpsist, I deny your concept of reality, and assert my own Intellect, of which you all are merely illusions, as the sole object of existence.

So, actually, what you figured out is that you are insignifigant and pointless, and then you autmatically assumed everyone else shared your problems.
As a Solpsist, I deny your concept of reality, and assert my own Intellect, of which you all are merely illusions, as the sole object of existence.
Techincally, the whole world is an illusion made up by our minds. Read the second of my blogs on my MySpace blog. www.myspace.com/ritlina Just click on my blog thing and then once in my blog click older. You'll find it.

Techincally, the whole world is an illusion made up by our minds. Read the second of my blogs on my MySpace blog. www.myspace.com/ritlina Just click on my blog thing and then once in my blog click older. You'll find it.
Na-uh. You almost had it, but then you had to say "our." There is no "our" as "our" implies that there is more than one entity in the Universe. There is only "me" and the halluciantions that my mind has generated to amuse itself.

"Graphic" in terms of video game violence usually means ridiculous and over the top, i.e. less desensitizing, as the disconnect is more obvious.

Agreed.

Training people to dehumanize entities on a screen and having them dehumanize real people are entirely different things, because the objects on the screen are intentionally designed to be dehumanized. If you've dehumanized a real person, with all the associated challenges, then no matter what your experience with violence you can do whatever you want to them, just as you might to any other nonsentient object. People aren't sensitized or desensitized to violence, they're sensitized or desensitized to others' humanity, and that's something that can just about only happen in real life.

I don't agree here.
First, people can be desensitized to violence.
Second, you are right about people being sensitized or desensitized to others' humanity, but it can happen through games as well as through life.
Repeated simulation of treating people like objects of violence can influence behavior in the real world.
As evolved as we are, a good part of us still operates on a "Monkey See, Monkey Do" level.

Na-uh. You almost had it, but then you had to say "our." There is no "our" as "our" implies that there is more than one entity in the Universe. There is only "me" and the halluciantions that my mind has generated to amuse itself.
Ok. YOUR universe.

Stalin was affeccted by a mistranslated series of sketches written by the infamous, fourth Marx Brother: Karl.

Chico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo, Zeppo and Karl.

What makes Karl the fourth? If anything he'd be the first or the sixth, surely?

What makes Karl the fourth? If anything he'd be the first or the sixth, surely?
Like, duh, the name "Karl" has four letters in it.

Agreed.



I don't agree here.
First, people can be desensitized to violence.
Second, you are right about people being sensitized or desensitized to others' humanity, but it can happen through games as well as through life.
Repeated simulation of treating people like objects of violence can influence behavior in the real world.
As evolved as we are, a good part of us still operates on a "Monkey See, Monkey Do" level.

People can't get desensitized to violence because they aren't sensitive to violence in the first place. There is no inherent revulsion in chopping up a barrel, for example. People are sensitive to harm to beings they think of as human/feeling.

Most games try very hard to make the foes things that are already easy to dehumanize. That's why stormtroopers all wear helmets. The people that get dehumanized in games are primarily entities that exist in games. Playing a game can get you to think that, for example, CG WWII German soldiers are not human, or cartoonish terrorists with ridiculous weapons are not human, or orcish cultists are not human. I agree that when various media depict those who obviously have real analogs that can create dehumanization that can extend into real life, but those circumstances are rare, and much more common in the case of books than that of movies.

People can't get desensitized to violence because they aren't sensitive to violence in the first place. There is no inherent revulsion in chopping up a barrel, for example. People are sensitive to harm to beings they think of as human/feeling.

I could nitpick that line of though, but it's not important enough to bother.
You're close enough.

Most games try very hard to make the foes things that are already easy to dehumanize. That's why stormtroopers all wear helmets. The people that get dehumanized in games are primarily entities that exist in games. Playing a game can get you to think that, for example, CG WWII German soldiers are not human, or cartoonish terrorists with ridiculous weapons are not human, or orcish cultists are not human.

The entities in games are often portrayed as intelligent, thinking beings that the player can identify as human or human-like.

I agree that when various media depict those who obviously have real analogs that can create dehumanization that can extend into real life, but those circumstances are rare, and much more common in the case of books than that of movies.

How so?

some people have toruble thinking that some people may just be crazy or they may just be very violent in nature. so they turn to a scape goat. this scape goat has changed through the years. it used to be books. they would censor and ban books, even socrates was against written text (although for completely different reasons) after books it kind of changed to music, there was and still is huge issues about new forms of music. now its television and video games.

while i do think some people are really weak minded enough to fall into not knowing the difference of reality and entertainment and copying what they see on television, hear on the radio, or read without even thinking about what it could possibly do. these are very few of the billions that enjoy books, music, and other forms of media.

He read it before. I do believe it was "Catcher In The Rye". I read it.

EDIT: Can't find any god damn influences. But can't find any god damn influences in television or video games either.
How the fuck do you interpert Catcher In The Rye to kill Lennon?! :confused:

Catcher In the Rye has no real violence in it, so that's a bad example.
You could refer to copycat killings and rapes based on Clockwork Orange, but those seem to have all been based on the movie.

In general, I can agree that books can be as dangerous as movies and film, but they're dangerous in a different way.
Graphic violent scenes in movies desensatise people to violence.
Video games encourage active participation in killings, in various levels of realism. The highter the level of realism, the more potentially dangerous the game is.
Pac-Man is harmless.
Modern first-person shooter games are not harmless. They won't turn normal kids into crazed killers, but they do help people overcome their inherent resistance towards shooting other human beings, and the more graphic the images in the game, the more desensitized the players can become.

Once the US military switched from practicing shooting Bullseye type targets to shooting human sillouette targets, the kill rate rose drastically because we were training our soldiers to shoot at people.
Video games can work the same way.
Why do you think violent videogames were invented?! Government conspiracy of course!:p

People did and do blame books. Before video games it was tv, before that comic books, before that regular books. It's history. "Concerned parents" (aka jerks) try to ban violent books from libraries all the time.

Also, according to a recent study, kids can't read. Who cares what books say if no one reads them?

People blame anything or anyone other than themselves. They always have and they always will.

On the issue of Television influencing behaviour I suggest that those that are really interested have a look at the work of David Gauntlett (http://www.theory.org.uk/david/book1.htm) as a starting point.

I have noticed that when everyone complains about media violence, they only complain about the violence portrayed in electronic influences, such as television, radio, video games, etc. Now then, you may remeber the assassination of John Lenon. The man who assassinated him was inspired to do this by a book. Not a television show, not a video game, but by a BOOK. Now then, with this evidence, do you think it is fair that only television, video games, etc. should be blamed for media violence?

(Note that I have nothing against books. In fact, I enjoy books. I'm just saying, it isn't fair that only television and the such are being blamed.)

It's all about culture, with a good dose of genetics, and pre- and neo-natal environmental influances tossed in for effect.

Hitler was influenced by this thing called WWI, a form of LARPing performed on an international scale. It was based on a somewhat modern setting, with machine guns and artillery, except that everyone agreed to use the most inefficient tactics possible.
Stalin was affeccted by a mistranslated series of sketches written by the infamous, fourth Marx Brother: Karl. Regretfully, the combination of a poor German-Russian translation and the generation gap in the humor led to certain misunderstandings on Stalin's part.
Ivan Hoe was influenced by the book that was later thought to have been based on his life. In reality, the book preceded him, and Ivan Hoe was so impressed with the story that he based his life on the titular character (who only shared his name by coincidence).
Mary Queen of Scots and Ghengis Khan? They were just assholes.
There were four Marx brothers, five realy but Gummo left before they made it to movies, Zeppo just fell out of the act after their first few movies to become their manager. So Karl would thus have been the sixth brother.
The Psyker
Provider of useless knowledge since two weeks ago next Wensday

Chico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo, Zeppo and Karl.

What makes Karl the fourth? If anything he'd be the first or the sixth, surely?
Damn it beaten to it:mad: That will teach me to read posts all the way before adding my jokes.:rolleyes:

I think that our society is saturated with violence in every medium. Apparently, we just can’t get through the day without seeing or reading about something very bad happening to other people. Mystery novel always have a murder. Have you noticed how few mystery novels are about theft all by itself. If theft is the major crime in a Mystery Novel they tend to throw in a murder just to liven things up. So really if little old ladies are this blood thirsty, what can they expect from the rest of us? Let's face it they really need to clean up Mystery Novels.

Really I think the whole Puritan thing in the ratings about being OK with violence and trying to censure sex is right out of it. I would think that it would be preferable for teenagers to watch sex than extreme violence and other than a few die hard Chuck Norris fans I don’t think any teenager would disagree.

some people have toruble thinking that some people may just be crazy or they may just be very violent in nature. so they turn to a scape goat. this scape goat has changed through the years. it used to be books. they would censor and ban books, even socrates was against written text (although for completely different reasons) after books it kind of changed to music, there was and still is huge issues about new forms of music. now its television and video games.

while i do think some people are really weak minded enough to fall into not knowing the difference of reality and entertainment and copying what they see on television, hear on the radio, or read without even thinking about what it could possibly do. these are very few of the billions that enjoy books, music, and other forms of media.
Thank you.

I'm glad someone else has said this.

After all, what did the neolithic men and women have that influenced their violent behaviour? Oh right, let's blame it on the need to survive.

Yeah. That's because according to the upper class, musicians are beasts who don't deserve to be remebered.

If you ask me, John Lennon is way overrated. He was a millionaire pop star who couldn't even be bothered to learn the basics of reading music and pretended to be a socialist.

Modern media has a lot of problems, but I don't think brainwashing people to kill is one of them. I've watched shows so violent they would never be broadcast in the US in a million years, but I'm not violent at all. Indeed, consider that Japan, renowned for its very low crime rate, has some of the most violent media in existance (look at Elfen Lied or Legend of the Overfiend).

Edit: Hmm, 10,666 posts...

Damn it beaten to it:mad: That will teach me to read posts all the way before adding my jokes.:rolleyes:

Yeah, well if you want to be really pedantic there were six Marx brothers, but only five Marx Brothers, as one of them died in infancy and so never took to the boards.