"Orlando doesn’t shake belief that video games don’t cause violence"

[Hydra009]

I've been sitting on this for a while, because when I first saw this article, I honestly thought it was a joke.  I mean, wtf kind of headline is that?! And what's with the double negatives?  Is he trying to imply that the Orlando shooting bolsters the belief that video games cause violence?  Cause it sure seems that's what he's going for.

Video games cause violence; what is this, 1999?  I thought that this was just an anti-gaming "journalist" with an axe to grind.  An isolated case.  No big deal.  Boy was I wrong, 'cause this story has legs.  And apparently, a lot of the gaming press (you know, the "gamers are dead" people) and a dev of all people are on board with this smear campaign.

I'll get to that in a second, but you know what's really weird about this?  There's no logical connection between the Orlando shooting and video games at all.  Not even that tenuous "well, they used to play Doom" (along with a thousand other recreative activities) connection like with Columbine.  We're talking zilch here.  When a tragedy like this happens, people tend to focus or more relevant things: the shooter's motivations, how he got access to a gun, if there were any warning signs that were missed by the authorities and people who knew him - you know, stuff like that.  If your first reaction is to blame Call of Duty without needing any logical connection between the two, it's pretty obvious that the tragedy is simply being exploited to prop up a pre-existing conclusion.  Also, the shooting happened close to the time that E3 was unveiled and apparently people associate unrelated events when they occur nearly simultaneously.  So, basically there's a double-whammy of poor thinking going on here.

Okay, so the first article isn't nearly as horrible as its absurd headline suggests.  The author, while clearly trying to stir the pot and lead the audience towards wondering about the role between Call of Duty and real-life shootings, at least acknowledges that there's little evidence to back up this assertion.  (Gee, I wonder why.)  Yet he stops just short of refuting this assertion and leaves it as an open question for other people to advance.  And others advanced it much, much harder.

Here's a hit piece from TheVerge.

Here's a lively discussion between Jonathan Blow (Braid dev) and Markus Persson (Minecraft dev):  https://twitter.com/notch/status/742254757864038400

I don't get why this is even still an issue.  Back when video games were new and scary, I could at least understand this sort of reaction.  It was still a shitty reaction, but it at least made sense from a non-gamer point of view.  When you're a non-gamer and you overhear something like this and don't understand the context, I can see it freaking them out.  But it's 2016 and everyone and their mom plays games now.  And while there's no shortage of shooters or violent games, there are tons of games aren't like that at all.  Nor does playing Counterstrike (essentially, cops and robbers with better graphics) cause you to become a killer any more than Kerbal Space Program causes you to become an astronaut.  So why does this sort of crap still have legs?

[Nonsensei]

I wrote to the authors of that verge article. I'll let you know if I ever hear back.

[SGOS]

Often times I wonder if many journalists are at a loss for something to write about.

[Flanker1Six]

Well if they do; they're not working very darn quick in my case (been shooting mofos and blowing **** up on screen since '86).     

[widdershins]

I do find it amusing that each time a fundamentally new "thing" comes out society either becomes afraid of or fascinated by it.  In the early days of movies robots were brand new and every sci-fi film was about robots taking over.

The '80s gave rise to heavy metal and suddenly Ozzy was the cause of all our woes.  But it also gave rise to computers and we couldn't quite decide whether they would start World War III or, if struck by lightning while you were at the keyboard, supercharge your brain, or maybe create a physical woman from a bunch of pictures.  Also, nuclear or otherwise toxic waste or chemicals might give you super powers!  I'm not sure where the hell that one came from but it was a repeated concept.  The Incredible Shrinking Woman, Zapped and that one with Melvin the mop boy come to mind.

In the '90s the threat became video games.  The original Mortal Kombat was just too realistic and everyone was afraid kids would start ripping each others spines out.

Today, though there are not a lot of really prevalent fears like there have been in the past, they seem to focus mostly on either aliens or AIs, which suggest our society has a fear of finding/making something smarter than us; a fear of being powerless, perhaps backed by an overall feeling of powerlessness in a world ruled by an increasingly overbearing "big brother".

But look at each of those examples.  We no longer fear robots (unless they have AI!).  We don't think we're going to make a hot chick with our computers and (again, unless it's an AI) we no longer tell stories that computers are going to destroy us.  We no longer tell stories about getting super powers by falling into a vat of toxic waste or mixing the wrong combinations of hand soaps and fabric softeners.  But people STILL blame music and video games for their problems.

If you think about that, it actually makes sense.  The two things in that list that people still fear are the only two which are forms of expression.  This suggests that people don't really fear the video games or music and never really have.  It's not about any real fear.  It's really about suppressing forms of expression that they don't like.  The claimed fear of what "might be" is just a way to excuse the attempt at suppressing it because they are consciously aware that "Because I don't like it!" is not an argument which will win their case.  There were a few attempts to criminalize low-hanging pants, but they have been pretty much unsuccessful as far as I know, likely because there is no false safety or public interest concern that they can claim.  They almost HAVE to come right out and admit that black culture scares and confuses them.

[Hydra009]

It's not about any real fear.  It's really about suppressing forms of expression that they don't like.  The claimed fear of what "might be" is just a way to excuse the attempt at suppressing it because they are consciously aware that "Because I don't like it!" is not an argument which will win their case.

Bingo.

And I'm used to that sort of behavior from the Right.  But coming from the Left, it always catches me off guard because I have this crazy idea that liberalism means supporting free expression.  I mean, these people will go to bat for flag-burners (and rightly so, in my opinion) and yet when it comes to fantasy violence, they sometimes act like fundies at a blasphemous art exhibit.  So when "progressive" news outlets like TheVerge start sounding like Jack Tompson, it really raises my hackles.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I was violent before video games. Did the article explain that?

[SGOS]

Until someone robs my bank with a Dualshock wireless controller from an old Playstion 3, I'm not going to worry too much about this.

[drunkenshoe]

I think there could be two main reason why this is still happening and I'm afraid will happen for some time.

First of all it is the old conservative cultural reflex to blame an outside made up factor when there is an issue conflcting with their 'principles' benefits and profits. Every day more people speak out against gun issues in the US and after every mass shooting, the same topics heighten.

These groups, religious or just ignorant and conservative, believe that TV shows or movies 'make' people gay or transsexual, ffs. They probably percieve the victims and the murderer in same terms.

Secondly, NO, out of a certain gamer groups, most people do NOT play games of the sort that were put under blame here. A very big amount of people have NO idea of the gaming world or these games. People are playing that thing called candy crush, forge of empires, clan of something...farm frenzy things. Anything that can be played in tablets or phones, not in desktops.

They have no idea or perception, impression of these games as some sort of rich fantasy worlds to have fun, learn and 'live' in. What they know about it that "gamers get guns kill people and things in it" or "it is violent". This is not an exaggerated view. There are people who think GTA has been teaching people how to be a terrorist and criminals.

Also it is still the impression that it is a weird thing for an adult to play games that you didn't grow up. I have been told this several times along with comic books. May be it is different in the US, but haven't you ever had someone making a ridiculous remark of "Aren't you too old for killing monsters?".

The majority of gamers are still young people and the generations are still not transformed. Even after this is done, there will always be a group to blame games, movies and tv shows. And these people will always be parents mostly. And 'journalists' willl only listen to them until people get that adults play them too.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Well if they do; they're not working very darn quick in my case (been shooting mofos and blowing **** up on screen since '86).     

We're all adults here. You can type "shit" without censoring yourself.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

[widdershins]

Bingo.

And I'm used to that sort of behavior from the Right.  But coming from the Left, it always catches me off guard because I have this crazy idea that liberalism means supporting free expression.  I mean, these people will go to bat for flag-burners (and rightly so, in my opinion) and yet when it comes to fantasy violence, they sometimes act like fundies at a blasphemous art exhibit.  So when "progressive" news outlets like TheVerge start sounding like Jack Tompson, it really raises my hackles.

I think the issue hear is that they really don't know that they're against the form of expression.  Human brains work in funny ways.  We want to be right.  If something feels bad or wrong to us we want it to be bad or wrong and that can sometimes cloud our judgement and obstruct our objectivity.  It's human nature to such an extent that even normally open-minded, objective people can fall prey to the trickery of their own brains from time to time.

Besides that, liberals today are all touchy-feely to the extreme.  They have to pretend that there are no problems in Islam, the problem is just the people who are "doing it wrong", for instance.  But there are some VERY BIG problems with Islam as a whole, such as the EXTREME subjugation of women, even in moderate Muslim cultures.  All 7 countries in the world where being atheist carries the death penalty are Islamic countries.  This shows definitively that there is something unique about Islam that makes it generally worse than other religions that it, alone, would allow people to believe it is okay to murder people for their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

The modern liberal trend these days (and it has been going on for a while, at least since the anti-smoking campaign began) is to respect the feelings and opinions of EVERYONE, except those "doing something bad", whether those feelings and opinions deserve respect or not.  All smokers are "doing something bad", so fuck them.  And violence is very, very bad, so fuck people who participate in even simulated violence.

That and the tax-happy nature of Democrats is why I am not currently and will not in the foreseeable future be a Democrat.  Their solution to literally every single problem is "tax it".  From tobacco use to gun violence to carbon emissions, tax tobacco, tax bullets, tax carbon emissions, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax.  Taxes too high?  Tax the damned taxes!  That'll fix it!  And what if you don't have the power to add a tax to everyone's telephone bill?  Call the tax a fee and it's good!

But I digress.  The point is that people have flaws.  They don't always realize why they believe something they believe and there are some things that they believe that they simply will not give up even in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary.  If you watch Real Time then you've seen the "Muslim" conversations with liberals on there who, when Bill says, "There is a problem with Islam as a whole" they hear, "Every single Muslim in the world is a terrorist who wants to kill everyone who disagrees with them so we should kill all Muslims and their babies to fix it!" and they simply CAN NOT be convinced that isn't what he said.  We all have our beliefs and it takes a constant, conscious effort to examine them and ensure that we are being completely subjective because it is actually very difficult for us to be completely subjective on subjects which are important to us.  It is hard for us to realize that we are wrong when the subject is something we hold as important.

[TrueStory]

I've been sitting on this for a while, because when I first saw this article, I honestly thought it was a joke.  I mean, wtf kind of headline is that?! And what's with the double negatives?  Is he trying to imply that the Orlando shooting bolsters the belief that video games cause violence?  Cause it sure seems that's what he's going for.

Video games cause violence; what is this, 1999?  I thought that this was just an anti-gaming "journalist" with an axe to grind.  An isolated case.  No big deal.  Boy was I wrong, 'cause this story has legs.  And apparently, a lot of the gaming press (you know, the "gamers are dead" people) and a dev of all people are on board with this smear campaign.

I'll get to that in a second, but you know what's really weird about this?  There's no logical connection between the Orlando shooting and video games at all.  Not even that tenuous "well, they used to play Doom" (along with a thousand other recreative activities) connection like with Columbine.  We're talking zilch here.  When a tragedy like this happens, people tend to focus or more relevant things: the shooter's motivations, how he got access to a gun, if there were any warning signs that were missed by the authorities and people who knew him - you know, stuff like that.  If your first reaction is to blame Call of Duty without needing any logical connection between the two, it's pretty obvious that the tragedy is simply being exploited to prop up a pre-existing conclusion.  Also, the shooting happened close to the time that E3 was unveiled and apparently people associate unrelated events when they occur nearly simultaneously.  So, basically there's a double-whammy of poor thinking going on here.

Okay, so the first article isn't nearly as horrible as its absurd headline suggests.  The author, while clearly trying to stir the pot and lead the audience towards wondering about the role between Call of Duty and real-life shootings, at least acknowledges that there's little evidence to back up this assertion.  (Gee, I wonder why.)  Yet he stops just short of refuting this assertion and leaves it as an open question for other people to advance.  And others advanced it much, much harder.

Here's a hit piece from TheVerge.

Here's a lively discussion between Jonathan Blow (Braid dev) and Markus Persson (Minecraft dev):  https://twitter.com/notch/status/742254757864038400

I don't get why this is even still an issue.  Back when video games were new and scary, I could at least understand this sort of reaction.  It was still a shitty reaction, but it at least made sense from a non-gamer point of view.  When you're a non-gamer and you overhear something like this and don't understand the context, I can see it freaking them out.  But it's 2016 and everyone and their mom plays games now.  And while there's no shortage of shooters or violent games, there are tons of games aren't like that at all.  Nor does playing Counterstrike (essentially, cops and robbers with better graphics) cause you to become a killer any more than Kerbal Space Program causes you to become an astronaut.  So why does this sort of crap still have legs?

Have you checked the peer reviewed science on video game violence?  No where in the OP do I see any type of scientific inquiry or evidence for or against.

[Hydra009]

Have you checked the peer reviewed science on video game violence?  No where in the OP do I see any type of scientific inquiry or evidence for or against.

The first article does mention them, and links the APA study that seems to suggest it might increase aggression while also acknowledging "insufficient research to link violent video game play to criminal violence".  The general picture is thus:  "The truth is that decades of research have turned up no reliable causal link between playing violent video games and perpetrating actual violence."

But for the sake of argument, let's say that it can be empirically proven that people who play Mortal Kombat are more likely to be violent.  What do we do, ban it?  Let's say that professional wrestling comes back with similar results.  Do we ban that?  MMA?  Violent movies?  War footage?  The evening news?

Just how far are we willing to go down this road?

[Hydra009]

I think the issue hear is that they really don't know that they're against the form of expression.

Every villain is a hero in his own mind.

Human brains work in funny ways.  We want to be right.  If something feels bad or wrong to us we want it to be bad or wrong and that can sometimes cloud our judgement and obstruct our objectivity.  It's human nature to such an extent that even normally open-minded, objective people can fall prey to the trickery of their own brains from time to time.

Yeah, I think you just nailed down the root problem.  But what can be done to ease such fears?

The only solution I can think of is simply to wait it out - the old moral crusaders die off, a new generation that's more at ease with this technology takes over, and the issue slowly fades away.  Yet, in the past 20 years, not a whole lot has changed.  If anything, new and younger moral crusaders have joined in.  What gives?