@ Bacterius: well you will have to be more specific on what it is you do not understand. I am trying to work with you but you seem to be ignoring things I've said in previous posts. What do you fail to see exactly? I have not said once anywhere that games cause kids to go boom.

I am saying that instead of falling into that trap, we should not be looking at games specifically, but all mass media (particurlarly mass entertainment) in terms of the messages they send us. I think they reinforce alot of negative views and attitudes.

Your point (one of them) is that video games should not be treated any differently than any other form of media. But they are not - there isn't some big crusade against video games, you just feel targeted because you play/make video games or because of some headline in the MEDIA. When a shooting occurs, people don't just go questioning whether the guy played GTA, there's a lot more arguments floating around which you just don't see: did the shooter use facebook, was he social, did he smoke weed, was he into heavy metal music, was he influenced by advertisement such and such, ... shall I go on?

The bottom line is, any human being is capable of deciding for himself whether he should do X or not, based on his beliefs and value system. It's called free will. Now whether this value system was corrupted by mass media, I don't know - I suppose it would have been, for people who had not been instilled core values by their parents, after all, mass media is designed to influence people. But it's certainly not just because of games, and people are not specifically targeting games. The MEDIA is sometimes targeting games, because it's the latest trend, something new to hate on, etc... look again in a few weeks and you'll find another headline pointing the finger at something completely different.

@Bacterius

I doubt you will find much support that video games are NOT treated differently than other forms of mass media. I think they SHOULD NOT BE. But they are. But i think this entire line of discussion is outside of the point i was making. Vice President Joe Biden just met with "representatives" of the video game industry and the NRA. These have been headlines in the last few days. It did not say that he met with members of tv, film, video games, music, etc.

As for your second paragraph, my original post addressed all of those issues. You call it free will, i referred to it by it's second cousin "personal responsibility." Free will in the sense you use it does not exist. If it did, there would be no such thing as advertising. Free will requires first of all, that people are fully concious of all the positives and negatives of all their actions. They are not. This is logical because we are not perfect decision making people not just because we are "weak of will" but also because we are ignorant of consequences. Parents are too.

@Bacterius

I admit that when I started this topic somehow I assumed everyone knew this topic stemmed from the recent news headlines about the Vice President meeting with the NRA and Representaives of the Video Game Industry.

That is the launching off point of my article. My point is that why single out video games, why single out video game violence and why this silly argument that videogames cause kids to SNAP! But that is what has happened here. I'm saying we need to avoid that trap and instead talk about all of the "tropes" that frivolous mass media is perpetuating.. not just violence, but women as sex objects, and everything else.

and don't forget, there was recently a California law that attempted to regulate sales of violent video games to children. That is jsut another example of how they ARE treated differently. We will not mention the escapades of Jack Thompson. But again, its entirely besides the point I'm making!

But again, I will take alot of the blame for the misunderstandings here. I made alot of assumptions that in retrospect were not obviously apparent. That is my bad.

[quote name='Hypnotron' timestamp='1358009576' post='5020749']
As for your second paragraph, my original post addressed all of those issues. You call it free will, i referred to it by it's second cousin "personal responsibility." Free will in the sense you use it does not exist. If it did, there would be no such thing as advertising. Free will requires first of all, that people are fully concious of all the positives and negatives of all their actions. They are not. This is logical because we are not perfect decision making people not just because we are "weak of will" but also because we are ignorant of consequences. Parents are too.
[/quote]

Yes, so what? We are not supposed to be perfect. It's part of being human to make mistakes. I made mistakes in life. You did, too. Everyone on this forum did. We will make more. But it's only human. Do you somehow think we would be better off if we were all somehow engineered with an intrinsic sense of right and wrong? I doubt so. We can inform people all we want, but ultimately, it's up to them to make their own choices ("responsibly") based on what they have been taught, by the media, their peers or family, whatever. And I agree that media has created some bad preconceptions and ideas, but when it comes to the most elementary, core values of an individual, mass media has very little effect on those except in pathological cases. Sure, we can change media (assume we can) to provide better messages and improve quality of life to some extent. I doubt anyone will argue with that, apart from the fact that changing popular culture isn't done overnight. Your point is self-evident. What discussion are you looking for?

Your second point - again, you're tunnel-visioning. The reason video games are being targeted at this precise moment in time is because everything else of interest has already been dispatched. Smoking? You've got those distasteful warnings all over cigarettes. Drugs? Most forms of psychedelic drugs are illegal or for medication only. Women as sex objects? Well, there's the whole feminism movement going, but let's not get into that, as it's a whole different topic altogether.

You see? Video games are treated no different than all those other things were treated in the past. Video games are just the "hot thing" right now. And whether some legislation will pass to condemn any form of violence or display of prostitution in video games (perhaps depending on the rating), I don't know, I doubt it. There isn't enough traction to warrant it. Perhaps some token action will be taken, and it will be forgotten when people get bored of it.

History repeats itself. So again, I ask - what discussion are you expecting to stem from this thread? Perhaps we've been arguing for the wrong reason.

Ok I'll answer you ultimate question first. I wasn't expecting any "discussion." I'm sharing my ideas. The only discussion I'm involved in are with people replying to my post.

But I dont understand why you think i'm tunnel visioning. If you don't think games are treated differently when... THEY ARE by virtue of oh... i dunno.. the media or politicians or law makers or parents TREATING or ATTEMPTING to treat them differently as is quite obvious, then I don't know what to say.

You have broadened your definition of "treated differently" to have no meaning frankly. Everything is persecuted therefore it's all the same. Well OK then sir. If it makes you happy, I WILL CONCEDE THE POINT that games at one time or another have been treated unfairly just like anything else. THIS IS BESIDES MY POINT. I don't care about this point at all. It's completely irrelevant to my original post.

Cigarette labels are hardly analgous surely you see this. I don't know why you brought them up. We are talking about the much more subtle and undetermined influences of mass media... not on scientifically proven issues of public health. This is why I wrote my opinion. If I could cite scientific articles of fact, I wouldn't need to write an opinion.

Further we are not talking about the past, we are talking about the present. And my position is that ALL MEDIA needs to be questioned on the messages they are sending. This was in my original post. This is still my original point. Somehow you keep reverting to some disparity I hold about video games. And if you think i'm somehow harping on the mistreatment of video games compared to mass media, I msut say, you manufactured this entire line of argument. I'm merely stating that TODAY in the current media cycle, games leading to violence is a major topic and im saying WE SHOULD NOT FALL INTO THAT TRAP and we should revert to an argument that centers around ALL MEDIA.

You seem to agree with me but yet, you don't really want to hear what I'm saying. This is all just minor bull... read what I wrote in my original post. I said quite early one, we should not fall into this trap, we should look at games as we do all other forms of media.

My goodness.

But maybe now is a perfect time for people in their own free time to contemplate THEIR meaning of free will and personal responsibility. And then, when they've finished doing that, they can contemplate the meaning of those terms as OTHER people use them.

Because if you logically consider the implications of these concepts, they beget a ton of questions. Does a newborn baby have freewill? Does it have personal responsibility? At what point in time does it have either? Do those things exist purely, intact and unbiased throughout the life of that individual? If the baby's personal responsiblity / free willed-ness as he progresses to adulthood can be influenced by members of society (parents, peers, teachers, media, etc) then does this not denote a multi-shared responsibility?

If not, why not? In other words, are we or are we not our brothers' and sisters' keepers?

Oh boy.....

I can't resist, I must reply to this topic. First, I play video games since I was 2 years old, and I never was violent let alone because of video games. Until now I played many many video games and 90% were considered violent or ultra violent. Mass media spins this crap about video games making people violent to prevent their doom. But on the other hand they forget that they brodcast wars and murders and various news in 2 p.m. (primarily cable networks). You do know that any kind can turn on the TV and see CSI or some sort of news showing uncensored corpses. That can change some people especialy those that are below 13 years old. Until I hear REAL case of someone going crazy and starts killing people because of video game, and not because the person was already insane, I will just point finger and laugh.

@proanim

Thank you for your reply.

Personal anecdotes you may know of course do not prove anything. However, they do reinforce certain positions. It is quite understandable. Either way I'm not proving or disproving anything. Again for the record, I think focussing on violence of video games is silly. It's a mental trap. We need to focus on media in general and the messages they propogate.

Media is apart of our culture. Media shapes our culture. We must understand this concsiously. How much of your understanding of the world comes from the media? It's impossible to know these days because you wind up asking "How much of my parents understanding comes from the media to which they bestowed upon me?"

That is why I advocate that we be very open and honest and we seek to better humanity and not simply make media that seeks to earn a buck at the expense of society.

Also to be clear, I don't advocate legislation to this affect. I advocate advocacy and teaching each other and letting this sort of change happen organicly if it will.

That's not going to work for me, unfortunately. I'm on the other side of the fence saying that the video game industry NEEDS to be responsible for what they show to kids. Because this isn't just watching violence anymore. Video games are an interactive media. It's no different than placing a real gun in a kid's hands. The sounds are real. The graphics are real. The experience is real. To say that video games of this nature do not influence violent behavior is ignorance on the game industry. If anyone takes a real gander at who do behavior studies, it's actually professional behavior analysts, which no one in the game industry is. Behavior analysts study the effects of what causes behavior patterns and affects it, and violent media is one of those causes. So if some of you were more informed, you would realize that this simply saying that video games are part of the problem.

"But we should focus on all media, too."

They do. Video games is just another media added to the mix. They aren't focusing entirely on video games, but that's where a lot of adolescent boys' attentions are these days, if not on television watching cartoons or wrestling. So of course a lot of people are going to be concerned about it. I wish some of you would look past your short temper and question WHY they might say this instead of THAT they said it.