Another post of opinion.
Apr. 19th, 2007 05:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flyboy_foxSorry if I ruffled a few people with my last post n.n;; But hey, I wouldn't be me if I didn't open a can of worms every now and then. It gets people talking, and that's the important thing. And anyone who can put forward their point of view in a civil and intelligent manner gets my full respect, whether or not I agree with them :) So, thanks everyone who commented.
I thought I was done with the whole Virginia Tech thing, but I do have one more very small rant to tag onto it, if only because it keeps cropping up everywhere I look. Gamers and movie watchers saw it a mile away... of course violent video games and films have been accused as the culprits for the actions taken by the shooter. And in sense, they have some backing. The correlation between violent video games/movies and certain types of behavior is in fact stronger than the correlation between passive smoking and lung disease and several other scientifically accepted links. HOWEVER, the link is just that. A link. A weak link. It does not in any way mean that people who watch violent movies or play violent games are more likely to go out and commit homicide. It merely means that video games and movies can influence us.
The human mind is incredibly complex. It can be influenced by a huge array of things, including video games and movies. BUT (and the main point is here), the MAJORITY of people will not go on a shooting rampage because of influence from media. It is VERY possible that media affected the shooter's actions... he is seen posing movie-style and even wielding a hammer from a particular movie he is hypothesized to have been familiar with. This important thing to distinguish here is that although his ACTIONS may have been influenced by things he had seen (and that is still only a hypothesis), those things were NOT the root cause of his mental disturbance. He was already mentally unbalanced.
To strike an analogy... some people may have epileptic fits after seeing strobe lighting or flash photography. The lighting triggers the fit, but the lighting is NOT responsible for the underlying condition. Strobe lighting and flash photography do not CAUSE epilepsy, and it would be entirely unjust to blame the lights for the person's underlying condition. The condition is there already in this small percentage of people, and the lights just happen to trigger it. Would we ban all flashing lights from everything just because a tiny minority of people are affected by them? Of course not. We put warnings on movies and rides that have flashing lights, just like we put warnings on movies and games with violent scenes. Of course, warnings don't stop every person with epilepsy from ever seeing flashing lights (many aren't even aware of their condition until it's triggered!), and warnings won't stop every vulnerable or damaged mind from watching violent scenes that might influence them.
Those who commit atrocities MAY have been influenced in their methods by violent games and/or movies, but the media itself cannot be blamed for the underlying psychosis that allows the person to blur the line between behavior that is acceptable, and behavior that is not. We can't censor the world on account of the tiny minority who have mental illness and will copy what they see in movies and games. If you remove the media influences, those people will be influenced by other sources. That's the nature of many mental illnesses... the mind will cling to anything tangible. And it is clear that this young person was perfectly capable of creating his own dark world in his own imaginings.
So, to those who say there is no link between violent media and abnormal behavior, I say that scientific study would disagree. But I also say that the link between the two is not of concern regarding the vast majority of people, and that those who would be affected more severely by such influences are unwell mentally in the first place. We would be foolish to assume that violent media has no effect whatsoever on our minds... but as of right now, there is no evidence to suggest that healthy persons are going to start going on shooting sprees because of what they see in fiction.
I thought I was done with the whole Virginia Tech thing, but I do have one more very small rant to tag onto it, if only because it keeps cropping up everywhere I look. Gamers and movie watchers saw it a mile away... of course violent video games and films have been accused as the culprits for the actions taken by the shooter. And in sense, they have some backing. The correlation between violent video games/movies and certain types of behavior is in fact stronger than the correlation between passive smoking and lung disease and several other scientifically accepted links. HOWEVER, the link is just that. A link. A weak link. It does not in any way mean that people who watch violent movies or play violent games are more likely to go out and commit homicide. It merely means that video games and movies can influence us.
The human mind is incredibly complex. It can be influenced by a huge array of things, including video games and movies. BUT (and the main point is here), the MAJORITY of people will not go on a shooting rampage because of influence from media. It is VERY possible that media affected the shooter's actions... he is seen posing movie-style and even wielding a hammer from a particular movie he is hypothesized to have been familiar with. This important thing to distinguish here is that although his ACTIONS may have been influenced by things he had seen (and that is still only a hypothesis), those things were NOT the root cause of his mental disturbance. He was already mentally unbalanced.
To strike an analogy... some people may have epileptic fits after seeing strobe lighting or flash photography. The lighting triggers the fit, but the lighting is NOT responsible for the underlying condition. Strobe lighting and flash photography do not CAUSE epilepsy, and it would be entirely unjust to blame the lights for the person's underlying condition. The condition is there already in this small percentage of people, and the lights just happen to trigger it. Would we ban all flashing lights from everything just because a tiny minority of people are affected by them? Of course not. We put warnings on movies and rides that have flashing lights, just like we put warnings on movies and games with violent scenes. Of course, warnings don't stop every person with epilepsy from ever seeing flashing lights (many aren't even aware of their condition until it's triggered!), and warnings won't stop every vulnerable or damaged mind from watching violent scenes that might influence them.
Those who commit atrocities MAY have been influenced in their methods by violent games and/or movies, but the media itself cannot be blamed for the underlying psychosis that allows the person to blur the line between behavior that is acceptable, and behavior that is not. We can't censor the world on account of the tiny minority who have mental illness and will copy what they see in movies and games. If you remove the media influences, those people will be influenced by other sources. That's the nature of many mental illnesses... the mind will cling to anything tangible. And it is clear that this young person was perfectly capable of creating his own dark world in his own imaginings.
So, to those who say there is no link between violent media and abnormal behavior, I say that scientific study would disagree. But I also say that the link between the two is not of concern regarding the vast majority of people, and that those who would be affected more severely by such influences are unwell mentally in the first place. We would be foolish to assume that violent media has no effect whatsoever on our minds... but as of right now, there is no evidence to suggest that healthy persons are going to start going on shooting sprees because of what they see in fiction.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 04:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 04:40 pm (UTC)-Collision Cat
no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 04:51 pm (UTC)There in fact is nothing wrong with people who DO wish they could "shoot stuff like Shadow" as long as they have the healthy human distinction between that wish and the actualisation of it. It's only when the mind loses its moral boundaries that wishful thinking becomes physical action.
The moral restraints that we, as human beings, place upon ourselves is lacking in some people. This leaves them with the same desires as most people, but without the coherence to distinguish between that fantasy and the actuality.
If they choose to behave like what they've seen in the media, it may well be that the media inspired them. But the media isn't responsible for the lack of moral restraint that is already there in the person. Most people won't go on a shooting spree, even if at times they might want to.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 05:04 pm (UTC)As for myself, I'm guilty. I used to want to act like Will from Illusion of Gaia as a kid. Now, I don't, but Will is still so awesome. I once dressed up as him once in high school for Halloween and people thought it was an 80's costume. Blah.
Which brings me to the Zelda fandom. I've seen actual made Ocarinas. It's mind boggling, although I think it would be cool to play an Ocarina just like Link. I doubt those who own one want to go out and slice things to death with their sword.
I respect ya, Jai. You brought up some really good points that I didn't think about. Movies/games do have some impact on a person, but it's just a link. A weak link, like you said.
As for the label warnings, kids still find ways to get around it. Have a good friend buy it for them and hide it from their parents. I know that some sixteen year old, two years ago, wanted me to buy cigs for her, but I said no. The warning labels are there so the media can not be at fault, maybe partly, but just a little bit. Like 1% to be fair.
Again, excellent points.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 06:47 pm (UTC)However, the fact remains that a lot of people, in their anger at those who DO jump to rash conclusions about violence and video gaming, tend to ignore the rapidly mounting evidence that there ARE problems stemming from the media culture.
For example, increased instances of Attention Defecit Disorder in children have been shown to have high correlations with the amount of hours spent watching television. These studies are quite conclusive, and indicate problems that need to be addressed. However, people are chosing to ignore these issues, or dismiss them, because they're angry at the people who accuse media of being responsible for occurances such as VTech.
Psychotic behavior exists everywhere and in pretty much every culture. There have been madmen documented throughout history... people who have slaughtered innocents and then turned the blade on themselves. These things have happened FAR before the advent of television and associated media. Inspired by everything from religion, personal vengence, corrupt mentorship... Media did not give birth to the homicidal maniac. People like the VTech killer have existed throughout history, and continue to exist in societies with OR without media influence.
However, we can't become complacent... we still have a duty to be careful and responsible with media, especially in the cases of children and interactive media (such as videogames). Even if these games don't turn us into killers, they can still desensitize us and influence us in subtle ways. There needs to be awareness. But awareness that treats the situation as it actually is, instead of jumping to ludicrious scare-mongering conclusions.
response
Date: 2007-04-19 09:13 pm (UTC)http://picasaweb.google.com/virginiatec/VirginiaTech/photo#5055174545336671394
Re: response
Date: 2007-04-20 05:13 pm (UTC)-Collision Cat
no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 08:09 pm (UTC)But yeah. People are wierd.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 08:36 pm (UTC)I write a mini-essay about the complexity of the situation, and you manage to sum it up in one sentence :P People are indeed weird.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 10:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-20 05:26 am (UTC)Hear hear, kupo!
no subject
Date: 2007-04-20 09:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-20 07:24 pm (UTC)Actually, I'm a little annoyed at how much attention is given to his fiction writings and medications, while very little to his stalking tendencies. People who write horror are not mass murderers. People suffering from depression are not mass murderers.
Yet, we have a man who has a history of stalking and harassing women, who had to be privately tutored because other students were too frightened of him to come to class--and no one thought these were warning signs? No one is playing this up in the media. Why? Which is more frightening--venting through horror and shooter games, or actively stalking and terrorizing fellow students?
Blargh.
(Um... by the way, I keep meaning to ask if I can friend you and then getting distracted by your posty... postingness....)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-20 07:27 pm (UTC)