-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yet another mass shooting...
- Thread starter Father Heathen
- Start date
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
This seems so obviously self evident, it’s hard to see how it reasonably can be disputed. Get rid of the guns, get rid of the shootings. And if America can’t or won’t do that, it’ll have to live with the shootings; which I guess is the unspoken position of the NRA and the politicians they fund.
Speaking as someone who literally grew up playing titles like GTA (which literally goes out of its way to be as violent as possible for easy advertising lol) can we let this “games are evil” rhetoric die already?
Now in terms of normalising gun crime, American TV, Movies and even books have been doing that since they were invented. I also grew up on such titles. Hell even Rockstar themselves take jabs at such a phenomenon from time to time. Pointing out the hypocrisy.
Like I can agree that gaming levels and indeed immersion in toxic environments on social media can be wholly unhealthy if kids are not properly supervised.
But to say haha look gaming increases aggression, which is technically true but most if not all contact sports have the same correlation, I think you’ll find. Because a lot of games themselves are competitive or challenging, by nature. Leading to aggressive responses simply due to competition eliciting such a response in most people just by default.
I will agree however that some gaming environments do have very toxic elements encouraging kids to view things in a toxic manner. But that’s why I think it’s important to supervise children
And that such places are in desperate need of moderation.
And I think the hateful and often toxic rhetoric that has largely allowed to foster online under the guise of “free speech” is probably far more responsible for eliciting such an uptick in shootings than video games ever was.
Though in this particular case it could have been due to the mental health of the individual idk
That is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow what I wrote.
Instead let's just ignore the faux catalysts.
The shooter's name is Andre Bing.
He is 31 years old. He had a list of people he wanted to kill on him at the time. On his cellular telephone was a manifesto (not released to the public). There are indications he was motivated by workplace issues.
So if the gun lobby say it, it must automatically be wrong.
That doesn't sound like the best way to make determinations about all of this, "I'm going to find out what the people I don't like believe and then just automatically assume the opposite must be true".
Speaking of links, I'm not seeing any in your post.
I'm not a gun owner or a gun advocate so I don't need a scapegoat.
But I'm not emotionally tethered to the other side of the argument either, which leaves me free to explore the possibilities with something like an open mind.
Which, as I'm starting to realize, is going to to make it almost impossible to communicate effectively on this issue with the rest of you guys (especially, I suspect, the gamers).
I'm neither a gamer nor a gun owner, so perhaps I'm able to be somewhat impartial?
There is some evidence that violent games are associated with increased aggression, but not overt violence.
Do Violent Video Games Lead to Violence?
Are Video Games Really Making Us More Violent? | KQED Education
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Beat me to it! And before there were video games, people tried to blame this stuff on books, like American Psycho, for example, which was banned in many places for this reason.
I wrote a meta-analytical paper (unfortunately, I have no idea where it is at the moment) a few years ago on violent behaviour in adolescents and what appears to be the main factor in predicting violent behaviour in that age group is not video games, or books, rather, it is the experience of violence in the child's direct and surrounding environment. Which makes a lot of sense, if you think about it.
I'm going to interpret that as "So you touched a nerve, please read the rest of my reply with that in mind. . ."
Nobody said anything about video games being "evil" (talk about rhetoric). I think some of you guys are purposely over -inflating my point just because it's easier to let air out of it later that way. Maybe you should stop and think for a second about why you find it necessary to do that.
Again: when you're watching violence on TV, movies, or reading about it in books you're a passive observer. You're just part of the audience you're not actually a participant.
There's a big difference between pointing a weapon at somebody and pulling the trigger and just watching somebody else do it.
It's really not the same thing at all.
All forms of media have a long history of normalizing violence, the point I'm trying to make is that video games are the first form of entertainment that actually normalizes participation in violence.
And, according to the study that I posted by the American psychological association, "increases in aggressive behavior and thoughts and decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy, and sensitivity to aggression" (and I don't remember the article saying 'haha').
The decrease in empathy is what stood out to me.
I wonder if the same can be said for all the other forms of media that you mentioned.
I would guess not.
Probably more often than not, violence in other forms of media is presented with the intention to evoke a catharsis with the victim, not the shooter.
But probably not this: "decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy . . ."
I don't know why many people here seem to want to treat this issue as if this were some sort of competition to find the one and only cause responsible for the up tick in frequency of mass shootings we're seeing now.
I'm sure a lot of factors play into it, and I'm sure a lot of those factors are fairly recent developments in human history.
I'm just proposing that violent video games --- in particular first person shooter games--- may possibly be one of those factors.
I think that kind of goes without saying.
Last edited:
You're not actually a participant in video games either. I play World of Warcraft occasionally with my wife. I don't think I'm a troll hunter, she doesn't think she's a blood elf warlock, we can also tell the difference between killing something in the game and real life killing. In my opinion 99% of the population are also able to distinguish the difference and those who can't would be just as confused by books, movies, TV. In my experience I've been more shocked by movies, they seem more life like than any video game I've played. Not that I've ever been much of a gamer or movie buff.
Your first article was inconclusive: "Fortunately, there is no hard eviidence that such games lead to mass murders or grisly killings".
"No hard evidence yet" isn't the same thing as evidence against which your post, the way it's phrased, seems to be suggesting.
And I don't think anybody in here is trying to make the argument that violent video games actually cause. My question was (just to make sure we're having the same conversation here), "Anybody else wonder about a connection between the rise in mass shootings and the rise in popularity of violent video games".
It was a question in regards to correlation.
Basically just a reiteration of your first article.
Of course you are. You control what your character does on screen. Those are actually your actions, therefore you're a participant.
Good to know. Here's the thing though: there are parts of you that dont actually distinguish between on screen violence and real life violence. The part of your brain that's responsible for the fight or flight response interprets threats you encounter in a video game pretty much the same way that it would to threats in real life.
There's even some evidence to a suggest that violent video games can actually cause PTSD like symptoms:
Hands Up! Atypical Defensive Reactions in Heavy Players of Violent Video Games When Exposed to Gun-Attack Pictures.
Which is probably why 99% of the population aren't mass murderers.
Addressed this twice in my previous posts.
Again: the difference I'm talking about is between being an active participant and a passive observer.
Have you ever played video games? Maybe I don't have the best computer or monitor but I've never seen one that is even close to realistic. And as you say you're controlling a "character", it's not like real life. I could maybe agree with you if a mass murderer sent out a drone to do their killing.
I've lived through a lot of these claims. Cartoon violence was to blame when I was a kid, then in my teenage years it was The Exorcist.
Yes. One of the reasons I stopped is because I noticed if I played at night I would be too "amped" to get to sleep afterwards. I never got that from a movie.
That doesn't matter to your amygdala. Amygdala - Wikipedia
To parts of your brain it actually is like real life.
I've addressed the differences already but I guess you're just going to keep ignoring what I said so I won't repeat it again.
But I have to wonder: if you were just going to dismiss the 'claim' out of hand why did you even bother responding?
Last edited:
Curious George
Veteran Member
is it not possible that there is a “culture of violence” and video games are a facet of that culture? I think he was clear in saying that he wasn’t asserting video games as a cause or trying to blame video games in the same fashion as others have done in the past with video games or cartoons. Rather, he was asking whether video games share in any way the responsibility for the acts of violence we see.
That’s your choice
I was being somewhat facetious and tongue in cheek. Perhaps that didn’t translate well in text form
Apologies
True but like other media, games do have age ratings for a reason. When gaming was “new” people largely ignored said ratings.
Naivety perhaps. I don’t know.
I don’t think it’s a good idea for children to be playing online shooters or Call or Duty or whatever. Most if not all such titles are rated R18 (in Australia at least) for a reason. Unfortunately with technology being the way it is, perhaps that’s a bit harder to control.
I don’t know. Theatre often involves direct audience participation. Especially children’s theatre.
I can agree that violent media is not a good idea to involve children in though.
Regardless of the distribution model.
But that’s why games have rating systems like all visual mediums. That they are not followed is usually down to poor supervision of minors. Which can be understandable in some scenarios (long working hours causing difficulty, children being very tech savvy or even just folks with friends whose parents are much more relaxed.)
Perhaps
Still seems a bit too “easy” thing to point to. Since gaming titles are as broad as books are. In many gaming titles empathy is actually the point of the exercise, even in very violent games, actively rewarding players for teamwork and problem solution.
Though I can certainly see such responses being elicited in “dumb shooter” titles
Not always. Like all media there is a wide variety in gaming. Some actively asking the player to sympathise more with victims of violence. But I suppose in first person shooters specifically you’re correct.
But for instance in many comic books, aimed for younger audiences, it’s simply “the bad guys getting beat up by the good guys” a lot of the time. With kids being encouraged to look up to heroes or even actively emulate said heroes. Even though said heroes will often have to resort to violence. Imagining themselves in the shoes of their heroes, punching folks out and being discouraged to have any empathy for the villains, is often the point for little kids enjoying media.
That changes as the age range increases though.
Indeed having more sympathy for the shooter rather than the victim isn’t technically isolated to gaming. Gaming just goes the next step since it’s more immersive by default. That may very well change in the future as technology becomes more and more immersive. I can certainly see people actively taking a role in stories, using VR.
And indeed just like one can point to plenty of examples in other media having black and white outcomes, one can point to plenty that don’t. Including in violent video games. A wide variety of storytelling techniques are found in gaming just like in all other media. Many designed to expressly elicit empathy for both sides and get one to think about a wide variety of themes. But that’s typically found in media aimed at a slightly older crowd to begin with.
I mean that’s what it always appeared like to me from the outside
(Not American so mass shootings are rare where I live.)
First it was movies turning kids evil, then it was comic books, TV, Harry Potter and D’n’D encouraging Satanism etc etc.
Maybe US gun culture and lack of mental health services may be large contributing factors as well?
Well that I can actually agree with.
You’d be surprised. Why do you think I had the response I had initially? Because all the media I have liked is always the first to be blamed by some folks who just want an easy scapegoat. Not saying you were trying to do that.
Just that it’s common
Geeks and nerds have had their backs against the wall for generations now. Because their hobbies always make for easy targets. Even artists have largely been blamed for causing misery in society.
Sorry SR, this post is way too long for me to even consider responding to it (and I can already tell a lot of it's just bloat).That’s your choice
I was being somewhat facetious and tongue in cheek. Perhaps that didn’t translate well in text form
Apologies
True but like other media, games do have age ratings for a reason. When gaming was “new” people largely ignored said ratings.
Naivety perhaps. I don’t know.
I don’t think it’s a good idea for children to be playing online shooters or Call or Duty or whatever. Most if not all such titles are rated R18 (in Australia at least) for a reason. Unfortunately with technology being the way it is, perhaps that’s a bit harder to control.
I don’t know. Theatre often involves direct audience participation. Especially children’s theatre.
I can agree that violent media is not a good idea to involve children in though.
Regardless of the distribution model.
But that’s why games have rating systems like all visual mediums. That they are not followed is usually down to poor supervision of minors. Which can be understandable in some scenarios (long working hours causing difficulty, children being very tech savvy or even just folks with friends whose parents are much more relaxed.)
Perhaps
Still seems a bit too “easy” thing to point to. Since gaming titles are as broad as books are. In many gaming titles empathy is actually the point of the exercise, even in very violent games, actively rewarding players for teamwork and problem solution.
Though I can certainly see such responses being elicited in “dumb shooter” titles
Not always. Like all media there is a wide variety in gaming. Some actively asking the player to sympathise more with victims of violence. But I suppose in first person shooters specifically you’re correct.
But for instance in many comic books, aimed for younger audiences, it’s simply “the bad guys getting beat up by the good guys” a lot of the time. With kids being encouraged to look up to heroes or even actively emulate said heroes. Even though said heroes will often have to resort to violence. Imagining themselves in the shoes of their heroes, punching folks out and being discouraged to have any empathy for the villains, is often the point for little kids enjoying media.
That changes as the age range increases though.
Indeed having more sympathy for the shooter rather than the victim isn’t technically isolated to gaming. Gaming just goes the next step since it’s more immersive by default. That may very well change in the future as technology becomes more and more immersive. I can certainly see people actively taking a role in stories, using VR.
And indeed just like one can point to plenty of examples in other media having black and white outcomes, one can point to plenty that don’t. Including in violent video games. A wide variety of storytelling techniques are found in gaming just like in all other media. Many designed to expressly elicit empathy for both sides and get one to think about a wide variety of themes. But that’s typically found in media aimed at a slightly older crowd to begin with.
I mean that’s what it always appeared like to me from the outside
(Not American so mass shootings are rare where I live.)
First it was movies turning kids evil, then it was comic books, TV, Harry Potter and D’n’D encouraging Satanism etc etc.
Maybe US gun culture and lack of mental health services may be large contributing factors as well?
Well that I can actually agree with.
You’d be surprised. Why do you think I had the response I had initially? Because all the media I have liked is always the first to be blamed by some folks who just want an easy scapegoat. Not saying you were trying to do that.
Just that it’s common
Geeks and nerds have had their backs against the wall for generations now. Because their hobbies always make for easy targets. Even artists have largely been blamed for causing misery in society.
In my experience when somebody starts doing this in a debate they're just trying to beat the other person into submission with words.
If you want to 'win" that badly here:
We Never Know
No Slack
"First-person shooter (FPS) is a sub-genre of shooter video games centered on gun and other weapon-based combat in a first-person perspective, with the player experiencing the action through the eyes of the protagonist and controlling the player character in a three-dimensional space"
First-person shooter - Wikipedia
Yes but the conversation started by me enquiring what his point was because I couldn't figure out if he was pointing at video games or the availability of guns in America. It's somehow gone a little off course as these conversations often do and I'm still unsure what the point is.