Augen said:
| Kasz216 said:
The mere conceptions of basic human rights hadn't been invented yet. Outside that, if you look at the media they did have at the time. The plays and such, they were pretty much nothing but gore with some dirty jokes thrown in.
Additionally, there is currently more value in the economy that's been created in the last 40 years or so, then had existed prior.
In otherwords, people are a lot more rich.
Advances in techology.
There are really tons of reasons, a good example though is Somalia, and what that is like without the wealth and human rights... it's not really any different then that era, outside the weapons they use.
To suggest that media doesn't have any effect on violence is essentially argueing that every person lives completely outside the social mores of society. Society and propaganda doesn't actually have any effect on people.
Violence in videogames really isn't any different then say, racism in or movies or anything else.
Media is a reflection of the culture that then reinforces it. It's one of the most basic tenants of sociology.
Like I said, banning isn't really a solution, bans only tend to reinforce.
but recognition of the patern is a good start to it, as is understanding WHY that is the case.
Would society really be as violent in a world where violent media basically didn't exist because nobody wanted it, because they recognized what it represented.
If people were basically in the mindset Spec Ops: The Line was supposed to put you in basically.
Seems unlikely... and even if it was the case. It seems like it'd be easier to know who to keep an eye on.
|
I seem to read two arguments here, but correct me if I am wrong.
1. Social progress in how we view human worth has coincided with increases in technology and wealth. So, the same things that have made us less violent have also allowed for creation of new media (film, television, video games, etc.) and increased access to them via economic boom.
2. Media is a reflection of a given society, but can influence it as well by emphasizing certain aspects of it. Examples such as reinforcing gender roles or political narratives.
I would say this. Demonstrations of violence do not make us more violent. What they do is make us more open to the concept of violence as a reasonable response to a situation. The key here is mind observing the stimuli and how is processes it. A well reasoned and developed mind could play Grand Theft Auto and never be tempted to commit any unsavory actions within it. Other minds is where things get tricky, so how to resolve it? I think the solution we have is the best one. Have to be of certain ages to purchase given media and have to trust adults the same way we do with alcohol and fire arms to be responsible until proven otherwise.
The challenge is always how much as a society do we behave as "big brother" or "nanny state" and how much trust we put in its citizenry. This wavers largely based on current events and how afraid people are of something. On games, I see it becoming like Rock and Roll music where in a generation we will muse a bit at how it was the boogie man of a generation. It is no surprise to me that vast majority of politicians that rally against it have little to no exposure or understanding of the medium.
|
You've more or less said everything I have been saying. Except the amount of well reasoned and developed minds probably aren't as big as you'd think basically.
Though like I said, there really isn't anthing you should do about it. It's just something good to be aware of... as awareness is generally required to resist the effects of things.
Even knowing that sexism or racism or whatever is wrong, unless your clued in on how media effects you, you end up being effected. Even if you are smart.
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/12/study_smart_people_are_not_less_racist_than_other_people/
People know racism and favoritism is wrong, but a lot still support the mechanics of it. People know violece is wrong, yet these same people totally get in fights or have no problems using it to solve problems like when provoked into fights... etc. Being smart is really no protection.
I mean... if we're talking spree shooters in particular. A lot of them are middleclass white kids, who seem to do fine in school and who's parents can afford good mental care.
It takes more then just knowledge that violence isn't ok, it also takes the knowledge that we are living in a culture of violence... and that violent media can effect you.
Well and time, if you've ever read Malcolm Gladwell's books, it shows how culture can last generations even when removed from that direct culture.
Like I said, I don't think there should be anything that curbs violent media outside what we already have... except for self awareness.
Self awareness solves all problems in time. (Or cultural problems in anycase.)
I mean, for one last insight on a mass shooter. Star Trek holodecks are awesome right? If you could play a game like Grand Theft Auto or live through an action movie or something on a holodeck... that would be amazingly fun. I know i'd find it fun as hell.
To someone who has zero empathy for others and is suicidal. That is essentially what a spree shooting would be.
If we lived in a culture where those games aren't considered fun... and instead it's mostly all tetris or some bullshit like that, would we see so many spree killings. I can't see how that wouldn't be the case.
Base culture can only be changed by awareness. Without it, even if you want to change things, you end up caught in the flow of culture. That's just how powerful and frightening a thing culture is.
