Who do you blame now, Jack Thompson?
Jack Thompson has been one of the most outspoken advocates of banning and censoring video games and other forms of entertainment to "protect" children from their "harmful" influence. He blames such tragedies as school shootings and teenage drug abuse on violent video games and their supposed psychological effects. Today, there was, unfortunately, a school shooting at an all-Amish high school in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania. In case you don't recall, the Amish reject all industrial and post-industrial technology - in other words, this kid didn't get the idea from video games.
I don't want to make light of this situation, but it does make anti-free speech advocates like Jack Thompson and Hillary Clinton look pretty dumb.
UPDATE: Apparently the shooter was not an Amish person, in which case, this is just sad and does not serve an argument.
I don't want to make light of this situation, but it does make anti-free speech advocates like Jack Thompson and Hillary Clinton look pretty dumb.
UPDATE: Apparently the shooter was not an Amish person, in which case, this is just sad and does not serve an argument.
13 Comments:
The entertainment industry has a responsibility to the public, whether they like it or not. Hollywood in particular has enormous influence over society, and over adolescents and teens specifically. The main responsibility lies with the parents. Nice that you made the assumption the shooter in this case was Amish. It is appreciated that you made the update, but the initial error remains. Assumptions and "not my responsibility" positions do nothing but make the problem worse. What this society needs is someone with enough intestinal fortitude to accept responsibility for themselves and do the right thing, despite profit. Apparently, that won't be you...
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20516878-2,00.html
"Dammit, we need something, ANYTHING to distract from "Page-gate", Bob Woodward's book, Iraq, and Afghanistan!" - Official White Horse Souse.
First, I completely agree that individuals are completely responsible for their actions. And, what applies to the individual applies to the corporations. They, too, need to accept responsiblity that their actions are influential, and have an impact. Your initial post wants to remove that responsibility from them. Everyone has their role in the way this society works. I am not shifting blame, I am holding entertainment and media responsible for the part they play.
The problem with people like me is that I have the guts to do that. Do you?
"First, I completely agree that individuals are completely responsible for their actions."
Since video games do not kill people, video games cannot be held responsible.
Nigel, at least bring an argument to the table that I can respect instead of hiding behind "Since video games don't kill people...". Guns don't technically kill people either, and that argument is without merit as well. There is a big picture that needs to be considered before making those statements. If not, the arguments you present are one dimensional and to no benefit to anyone. If, as you present, the current trend in video games (i.e. Grand Theft Auto) or entertainment (children out of wedlock, divorce, domestic abuse, drug abuse) is not responsible, then what do you present as a solution to a seemingly growing epidemic of violence, crime and immoral behavior in today's society? Can you present a solution or are you all bark and no bite?
A growing tendency for people to find something else to blame, helped along by bigger and bigger government getting people out of situations which they put themselves into.
Also, do me the favor explaining why my argument is without merit, instead of simply saying it is.
First, I have already stated why corporations in entertainment and media have a responsiblity to the public. My first response, I believe. The content of that material is influential, and has a negative impact on the impressionable youth who suffer the imbalance of having parents that don't do their jobs. Second, I am not blaming. I already said the shooter in the Amish case was responsible for his actions. He had a responsibility to be a productive member of society and he failed. The entertainment and media industry have a responsibility to be PRODUCTIVE members of the community as well. The are failing in their responsiblity as well. That is not blame. That is holding people and organizations responsible for themselves. Limiting or eliminating sensationalist material from the marketplace won't be the end all, be all solution. But it would have an impact. It would be a start. It would help. It is the right thing to do, even if profits for big corporations suffer. Sometimes for us all, the right choice is the toughest.
I'm not sure what your big government comment means. Can you be more specific?
Finally, you simply adding a statement that says "Video games don't kill people" is a reiteration of the initial argument I responded to. Is there more to that? Since there wasn't support in your original post, it is without merit. Simply re-stating what has already been said does not solidify or justify a position. With that said, I ask again. Do you have something more? Do you have a workable solution to the state of society today? Do you have a hunch, a hankering or an idea to get us started? What can you offer besides the easy one line sound bites? If there is a workable solution aside from video game companies offering more meaningful and positive content, I'd love to hear it. Now that I have done this favor for you (again), what can you offer for me?
hey anonymous to say that the companies are influencing this violence is too much because ultimately the individual can choose to not buy the product and thus not be influenced negatively.
So, free america, I guess you just love entrapment? It's, like, ok for the cops to offer you drugs so many times till you do something you wouldn't normally do, then arrest you, because, hey, they are directly telling you to do it, but, hell, why can't they? YOU did the illegal thing. All they did was... hey, wait a sec....
"sam", WTF are you talking about? I think your points were meant for "anonymous".
(By the way, when people don't have the balls to use their names and then attack viciously my positions, I don't really pay attention. At least use a plausible first name. It's not hard, and it gets you a lot more credibility.)
The point I was making is of course everyone is ultimatley responsible for their actions. But coercement, when taken to a high level, can influence the minds of a lot of people. I mean, it's a little ridiculous to advertise cigarettes to teenagers or kids when they are young and impresionable, wouldn't you agree? There is no real penalty for not smoking, but by making it look cool, they can influence people to do it. But not all people grow up enough to become impervisous to peer presure from wellmade marketing campaigns or influential leaders of movments and such. Should we hold someone responsible when they wouldn't normally do something but do it because of someone else? Or should we ultimatley hold the coercer responsible? That is the point I was trying to make.
No. Cigarette companies should be free to advertise however they want. We are not free unless we are responsible for ourselves.
there is scientific evidence that persistent and relentless bombardment of a psychological idea presented at a very early age will ultimately influence the being's later views. take for instance the textbooks the Nazi's used for their children. Even simple multiplication involved pointed remarks that could transform any rational being into a cold hearted one. for example "if it costs 1000 marks a day to feed and maintain a mental patient, and only 200 marks to maintain a healthy, Arayn citizen, how much could Germany save a year if mental patients were no longer part of society?" Imagine taking that kind of psychological bombardment from the age of 3 every day of your life. Would you hold these people responsible for their negative view of mental patients?
Post a Comment
<< Home