Booting up
So, welcome back. Semester Two already! I will talk about this blog (responsibilities, rules of engagement etc.) in the first class. But one thing I would like to emphasise from the outset is that this is NOT an anonymous forum. Well, let me qualify that. If you'd like to remain anonymous to the big wide world (this blog can be read by anyone), then it's fine to use an ID that does not identify who you actually are. But you cannot hide behind anonymity when it comes to other participants in this blog.
We (Luke and Kevin) need to know who you are and, by extension, other members of this blog can know who you are. We insist on this principle because we want people to use this blog responsibly i.e. to be accountable for the things they say. Flaming, trolling and the like is just "so 1997"! More to the point, it's not constructive. So don't write anything you don't want attributed to you.
In fact, we would prefer you are just upfront and don't just use an enigmatic ID for your posts. If you do have some groovy ID, consider signing your real name in your first couple of posts and make yourselves known to the group.
Disagreement and frank debate is great - that's part of what we're here for. But that can always be done with due care and respect for the people you're disagreeing with. Right, enough of the touchy-feelies. I look forward to reading your posts.
So here's my opening gambit: an article in yesterday's Herald. I find it a little depressing to see NZ's Chief Censor appearing as the voice of reason, whilst an Auckland academic is cited to lend credence to the scapegoating of violent video games.
Note, though, that she is only cited as saying there's a link between playing violent video games and aggression. She doesn't specify a causal link in one direction (i.e. violent video games cause aggressive behaviour). But would the casual reader spot that slippage or just finish the article with a sense that there is academic credibility for the causal theory? The placing of the paragraph towards the end of the article (who gets the final word?) and the word "however" that the paragraph kicks off with, all encourage such a misreading and the academic in question would have no control over that. (In other words, I'm not criticising her.)
Of course, none of this is as dismaying as the mini-supplementary article at the end (it appeared as a box-out in the paper version) which reminds us that the US executes 16 year olds from abused backgrounds. And I started this post feeling so positive...
We (Luke and Kevin) need to know who you are and, by extension, other members of this blog can know who you are. We insist on this principle because we want people to use this blog responsibly i.e. to be accountable for the things they say. Flaming, trolling and the like is just "so 1997"! More to the point, it's not constructive. So don't write anything you don't want attributed to you.
In fact, we would prefer you are just upfront and don't just use an enigmatic ID for your posts. If you do have some groovy ID, consider signing your real name in your first couple of posts and make yourselves known to the group.
Disagreement and frank debate is great - that's part of what we're here for. But that can always be done with due care and respect for the people you're disagreeing with. Right, enough of the touchy-feelies. I look forward to reading your posts.
So here's my opening gambit: an article in yesterday's Herald. I find it a little depressing to see NZ's Chief Censor appearing as the voice of reason, whilst an Auckland academic is cited to lend credence to the scapegoating of violent video games.
Note, though, that she is only cited as saying there's a link between playing violent video games and aggression. She doesn't specify a causal link in one direction (i.e. violent video games cause aggressive behaviour). But would the casual reader spot that slippage or just finish the article with a sense that there is academic credibility for the causal theory? The placing of the paragraph towards the end of the article (who gets the final word?) and the word "however" that the paragraph kicks off with, all encourage such a misreading and the academic in question would have no control over that. (In other words, I'm not criticising her.)
Of course, none of this is as dismaying as the mini-supplementary article at the end (it appeared as a box-out in the paper version) which reminds us that the US executes 16 year olds from abused backgrounds. And I started this post feeling so positive...
posted by Technoculture and New Media at 9:44 AM
5 Comments:
Is it not the point of censorship to restrict the exposure of such games? I mean I'm older than 18 and have played GTA. The scenario of the game, to me, is a little far fetched and has a real over riding sense of fiction. A player can just approach any car, pull the driver out and drive away. I would think that a real life car jacking would take more commitment from the perpetrator, perhaps more violence or at least the threat of violence. So what I am say is I tend to agree with Auckland University law Professor Scott Optican when he said "As long as you do the crime, do the act, with the intent to commit, what causes you to do it, propels you to do it, or motivates you do to do it is not relevant." I think if you were to blame crimes like this on psychological causes, one would have to look deeper than a criminals exposure to violence in the media. People are installed with a sense of right and wrong right? Or... Is part of ones sense of right and wrong is installed, some what, by the media? If that’s the case maybe the media do have some thing to answer for. Then again I think the key actors (parents, teachers, etc) in a person up bringing probably have more to answer for. May be my realism transcends more than just technology. Andrew B.
I think that the notion that video games are responsible for violent crime is nothing but an excuse posed by man to justify actions.
Having watched the film, Bowling for Columbine and listened to what Marilyn Manson said; I would hold the view that video games can actually prevent violent crime.
Although in saying this there are certainly exceptions to the rule but the car jacking in Auckland is not an exception to the rule. It is an excuse and it is a person wanting to blame someone else for their actions. It is a bit like the whole "they shouldn't sell it because I'll get addicted to it" concept, when really as humans we have choices that we can make, and the car jacker made the choice to car jack. The video game maker did not.
Andrew, most humans do know right from wrong. That is most certainly a fact, but that still does not stop some people. A couple of weeks ago I was watching a special on Oprah about a man in the USA who had robbed a place. He knew his actions were wrong and yet he still went ahead and did it anyway, so I think the issue we really need to be looking at is that of self control, because without which we are prone to make errors.
I personally am not a fan of video games and find them mindless ways to spend time but I can see merit to the argument that they prevent violent crime and quite frankly I would rather this than actual crime being committed. Crime however has been happening since the beginning of time so there is no merit to the argument that violent video games cause crime. It's like saying that movies cause people to kill or that guns do, but they don't, people kill other people. I don't know, maybe I'm a bit influenced by the movies that I've watched and the articles of read.
Getting to your point about censorship, I think there does need to be censorship but it is as you say, parents and internet cafe owners, particularly in the Auckland region do need to take responsibility for the addiction that ensues.
In short, crime is going to happen regardless of what is put across in the media but because of changing lifestyles and changing technology we want to find someone and something to blame so we don't have to take responsibility for our actions ourselves. Liz S
I believe that there are many other factors surrounding children being violent, but violent videogames would be a major influence. An example, my brother after playing WOW or World of Warcraft (an online RPG thing) would sometimes think he IS his character and talk in the same giberrish they talk within the game. Its amazing what actually goes on in his mind. (mind you, he is 24)
Basically, there is more to youth violence then just policing videogames. Think of Tv, movies, internet games and so on..
just my 2 cents
Joanne C
I feel that things such as violent video games can and have had negative effects on young minds. However, I completley agree with Liz that we make our own choices, and feel that it is often treated as a scapegoat this is simply not fair. However Liz, I would appreciate it if you could explain how video games prevent violent crimes! I find this to be an interesting comment....though Im not sure I agree!!!!
Anna what I mean by violence preventing video games is that it could be a way for otherwise would be killers to express their emotions, but do they really need the video games to let out their aggression? I'm not convinvced, there are other ways but if it prevents violent crime then it can't be all bad.
Post a Comment
<< Home