Ranking
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
Well, if we asume that some people are already imbalanced enough to want to harm others then finding violence repulsive is probably rather important. Not finding something repulsive or being sensitive about it is fine as long as you do not fantasise about it. I never said being desensitised automatically makes you manic about it but I feel like if videogames actually do make violence less frightening through experience then it could make it a lot easier for some maniac to hurt people. Not everyone has to turn into a maniac for scary shit to happen.

The same could be said for literally anything. If we're going to worry about what triggers mentally unhinged people we should take time to understand and consider the fact that video games are not the only medium that contributes towards the desensitisation of "reality" and also understand that when you're dealing with maniacs the issue probably lies with the maniac, not the medium. If we can assume that some people are imbalanced enough to want to harm others in the first place, aren't they the ones that are harming society? I don't see why video-games suddenly become the catalyst here.
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
I said desensitise reality because I can't accept that violence is the only thing videogames desensitise. Then again, I'm not sure if I find the desensitisation argument entirely convincing.

To say that video-games desensitise "reality" because you think they desensitise people to more than violence is ridiculous. It's a click-bait article title in the making. You can surely make your point without making a sweeping, provocative statement that has nothing to do with what you actually mean.
collect snots from the nose
The harm wouldn't have happened in this scenario if video games had not made violence less scary for the maniac. Therefore the harm would have been done both by the maniac and by the video game. I explained that I chose video games for selfish reasons (to do with helping teach a class who are writing essays, one kid decided to do video game violence so I made this discussion to find suggestions to make for him and hoped people would do research for me) rather than scapegoating because I am a fear monger. Video games are not the only catalyst here, I would have to be an imbecile to think that, but they are the only on topic catalyst from my point of view.

Onto your objection with the use of the word "reality" when I meant "the parts of reality you frequently experience in the video games you choose to play enough for them to have a lasting effect on your view of the topics and actions covered in them.": I was pressed toward the word by the repeated use of the word "realism" which tends to mean the quality of mimicking reality, either in physics, character loops or graphics. The word "reality" was subsequently on the tip of my tongue. I thought that since many video games covered more aspects of reality than just violence (although violence is the only one seen to be posing a problem at the moment) I might as well hint at that with a collective term covering all the possibilities. And again, I personally don't know if desensitisation is legit, I just think that if there is a correlation between resemblance of reality and desensitisation then the problem is bound to get worse as the physics and graphics and plots of games increase in the future as the industry continues to grow.

I feel like using the word "violence" would have been provocative as well but presumably you feel differently. Are you just angry at me misrepresenting my view because I still think that aspects of reality shown in video games (more than you seem to think) would be equally desensitised assuming that we are equally sensitive to them initially. I know that we are not equally sensitive to all of the things we see in video games, and that if we did become less sensitive to it the rate would most likely be proportional to original feelings towards them.

"Videogames Desensitise Violence!!!!!!" seems just as click-bait article to me as "Videogames Desensitise Reality!!!!!!" but you are probably right.
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
The harm wouldn't have happened in this scenario if video games had not made violence less scary for the maniac. Therefore the harm would have been done both by the maniac and by the video game.

That's like saying that a man who was capable of murder wouldn't have shot someone if he hadn't have found a gun. Why does the gun share partial blame with the murderer when it was the murderer's choice to use it? It doesn't make sense. It's the same idea as people shooting up schools because "the music made me do it". Totally ridiculous.
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
I explained that I chose video games for selfish reasons (to do with helping teach a class who are writing essays, one kid decided to do video game violence so I made this discussion to find suggestions to make for him and hoped people would do research for me) rather than scapegoating because I am a fear monger. Video games are not the only catalyst here, I would have to be an imbecile to think that, but they are the only on topic catalyst from my point of view.

That's fine, I'm not accusing you of actively trying to fear monger, it's just a by-product of your wording. I'm also not accusing you of holding the opinion that you're arguing, I'm addressing the argument itself.
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
Onto your objection with the use of the word "reality" when I meant "the parts of reality you frequently experience in the video games you choose to play enough for them to have a lasting effect on your view of the topics and actions covered in them.": I was pressed toward the word by the repeated use of the word "realism" which tends to mean the quality of mimicking reality, either in physics, character loops or graphics. The word "reality" was subsequently on the tip of my tongue.

That's fine, I still think the wording was poor and doesn't represent your point, though.
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
I thought that since many video games covered more aspects of reality than just violence (although violence is the only one seen to be posing a problem at the moment) I might as well hint at that with a collective term covering all the possibilities. And again, I personally don't know if desensitisation is legit, I just think that if there is a correlation between resemblance of reality and desensitisation then the problem is bound to get worse as the physics and graphics and plots of games increase in the future as the industry continues to grow.

This is where I take issue, I think you're making a huge deal out of literally nothing. Desensitisation to anything is unlikely to become a "problem" ever for normal people. There's plenty of people who are desensitised to violence, sex, drugs, and anything in-between and whatever number of those people can attribute it to video-games there's many, many, many more that would blame the internet, news, music, and so on. Desensitisation happens all the time, to everything. Not all of it is bad. Not all of it is a problem. You seem to appreciate there's no link between desensitisation and video-games (I'm sure there is one) but you do not seem to appreciate that even if there is, that it might not be a problem. That's the problem.
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
I feel like using the word "violence" would have been provocative as well but presumably you feel differently. Are you just angry at me misrepresenting my view because I still think that aspects of reality shown in video games (more than you seem to think) would be equally desensitised assuming that we are equally sensitive to them initially. I know that we are not equally sensitive to all of the things we see in video games, and that if we did become less sensitive to it the rate would most likely be proportional to original feelings towards them.

Couple of things:

  1. Addressing your opinion does not make me "angry" at your view. Please try and keep focused on justifying your opinion as opposed to running a clinic on my feelings. It's detracting from your argument (and mine).
  2. I understand that video-games expose people real-world themes in more ways than just violence. The reason I took "violence" as your meaning when you said "video-games desensitise people to REALITY" is because that statement is ridiculous. If you're going to identify a problem with video-games and make connotations that these problems are "harming society" you can't just generalise the issue and say all themes covered in video-games are under the big bad umbrella of desensitisation and expect nobody to take issue with that.
  3. Your tangent on us being equally desensitised to something if we were exposed to it via. the same video-game in the same way after having the same sensitivity to said something is... doing what exactly? I don't see how this contributes to the discussion at all. My point was addressing you being "troubled" about video-games becoming more realistic and using the link (if there is one) to desensitisation as the basis for your worry. The fact that you tried to give mentally-unhinged people part-blame for their crimes merely because video-games exist is exactly the type of mentality that is holding creative interactive mediums back as a whole, not just video-games. It's dark-age thinking at best.
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
"Videogames Desensitise Violence!!!!!!" seems just as click-bait article to me as "Videogames Desensitise Reality!!!!!!" but you are probably right.

They're both terrible, yours is just worse.
collect snots from the nose
Ok, re-reading the thread I think I remember wtf I was talking about when I said "reality" (but I might be mistaken, it is hard to recall the thought process exactly). It was a distinction between video game violence and violence IRL since Ele had mentioned that they are different. I suggested that they were being made increasingly similar. The word "violence" was therefore insufficient and while "real life violence" would have (perhaps) been preferable I settled with "reality" because of a range of reasons I can only, and have only, guessed at (e.g. video games cover more parts of reality than just violence, I was already talking about realism, I was trying to keep my post short and simply phrased at that time and the reason I shall describe at the end of this paragraph). The idea that video games desensitise video game violence rather than violence in reality at the moment made me think of how some video games increasingly seek to mimic reality. So I was talking about whether they would ever be able to desensitise anything in reality, rather than everything in reality. Obviously the implication was the opposite of what I intended so you thought it was exaggerated and sensationalist rather than generally down to earth and reserved (or whatever effect I was going for).

Now onto blame. I would suggest that a gun should not just be left lying around. If it is the shooter's own gun then I would suggest that distribution of proper medication or the extent of background screening for legal gun purchase was to blame. If he got it illegally then it is obviously the black market's fault and I would suggest perhaps police are partially to blame as well, although a lot of the time there is nothing they can do. If the man was completely sane and had no history of psychosis or violent behaviour or a mental condition owing itself to such actions and simply had a freak psychotic episode then it is hard to say what is most to blame since it is generally reduced to micro-determinants and whatnot. I feel like blame isn't the same thing as fault and that it shouldn't be seen as at gaming industry's fault that they (if they do) can cause violent behaviour in already unstable individuals, however video games might be to blame if we believe the desensitisation argument.

Now onto me trying not to be wrong. It is important to remember that my post was a response to Ele's which said that gaming desensitises video game violence but not IRL violence because we can tell the difference. Now if you believe that the violence in video games will always be desensitised by video games (as Ele implied might be the case) then once IRL violence and video game violence were indistinguishable then real life violence would be desensitised. I think you can see where I am coming from on that front even if neither of us believe that argument. The disagreement we have (as far as I can tell) is mainly whether this is worrying and whether being desensitised to something makes it easier to do it, I believe that it does since you are not as fearful of it since it might not seem like such a big deal. Now as you said, in "normal", moral people who are not compelled to violence being desensitised to it is not a problem. The second disagreement seems to be whether we could really blame video games for making people of a violent disposition more likely to hurt others (if video games actually do that). I feel like some people with violent fantasies who might otherwise never realise these fantasies could be made to find committing such acts easier if their "natural" disposition to sensitivity around violence was removed. And yeah, in this case it is the blame of the violent fantasist as well as video games, it wouldn't be the fault of a psychologically or neurologically unhinged person who didn't know what they where doing but if someone understands that they are hurting people then I feel differently.

I genuinely apologise for saying you were angry, that was kinda immature of me. That was phrased badly, I just wanted to know which parts exactly you had problems with. I hope I have explained myself more properly now. I don't think desensitisation of things make society inherently worse, just that it comes with a fair few dangers and that it is subsequently fair to worry about it when it applies to hurting people.
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
Ok, re-reading the thread I think I remember wtf I was talking about when I said "reality" (but I might be mistaken, it is hard to recall the thought process exactly). It was a distinction between video game violence and violence IRL since Ele had mentioned that they are different. I suggested that they were being made increasingly similar. The word "violence" was therefore insufficient and while "real life violence" would have (perhaps) been preferable I settled with "reality" because of a range of reasons I can only, and have only, guessed at (e.g. video games cover more parts of reality than just violence, I was already talking about realism, I was trying to keep my post short and simply phrased at that time and the reason I shall describe at the end of this paragraph). The idea that video games desensitise video game violence rather than violence in reality at the moment made me think of how some video games increasingly seek to mimic reality. So I was talking about whether they would ever be able to desensitise anything in reality, rather than everything in reality. Obviously the implication was the opposite of what I intended so you thought it was exaggerated and sensationalist rather than generally down to earth and reserved (or whatever effect I was going for).

Like I said, I understand why you said it. I still that it would have been more prudent of you to not use that phrasing at all, but it's done and I think you know how I feel about it for me to not have to repeat myself.
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
Now onto blame. I would suggest that a gun should not just be left lying around. If it is the shooter's own gun then I would suggest that distribution of proper medication or the extent of background screening for legal gun purchase was to blame. If he got it illegally then it is obviously the black market's fault and I would suggest perhaps police are partially to blame as well, although a lot of the time there is nothing they can do. If the man was completely sane and had no history of psychosis or violent behaviour or a mental condition owing itself to such actions and simply had a freak psychotic episode then it is hard to say what is most to blame since it is generally reduced to micro-determinants and whatnot. I feel like blame isn't the same thing as fault and that it shouldn't be seen as at gaming industry's fault that they (if they do) can cause violent behaviour in already unstable individuals, however video games might be to blame if we believe the desensitisation argument.

You feel like blame isn't the same thing as fault?

Originally Posted by Blame Definition
verb
feel or declare that (someone or something) is responsible for a fault or wrong.

noun
responsibility for a fault or wrong.

Originally Posted by Fault Definition
noun
responsibility for an accident or misfortune.

Definitions leave them wholly interchangeable, though I would argue in a courtroom setting one might suggest blame is the application of fault according to someone's opinion (unless it is proven to be fact), where fault is the responsibility of some sort of negative/lawbreaking action/inaction.

With this in mind... what? If a man shoots someone because he finds a pistol you can't magically place blame elsewhere. You have to find a discernible reason to be able to put blame on something else (e.g: proof that the medication wasn't properly distributed, proof that the screening wasn't extensive enough, proof that the police could have done something to prevent it) and even then I'd go as far as to say that the notion of removing blame completely from the perpetrator of the crime is totally absurd. The bottom line is that guns don't pull their own triggers and defending murderers (mentally unstable or otherwise) by blaming everything else is not logical or fair, especially so when it is regarding the use of creative mediums such as music, artistry or literature. This kind of attitude leads to a misunderstanding of what the real issue is (the person) and leads to censorship of the medium (in this case - video-games). Anyone could buy a gun legally and shoot anyone they want, that is their own fault and the blame can only lie at their doorstep. It's actually outrageous that you're sweeping logic under the rug to remove the responsibility of murderer's actions while using video-games as a scapegoat.
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
Now onto me trying not to be wrong. It is important to remember that my post was a response to Ele's which said that gaming desensitises video game violence but not IRL violence because we can tell the difference. Now if you believe that the violence in video games will always be desensitised by video games (as Ele implied might be the case) then once IRL violence and video game violence were indistinguishable then real life violence would be desensitised. I think you can see where I am coming from on that front even if neither of us believe that argument. The disagreement we have (as far as I can tell) is mainly whether this is worrying and whether being desensitised to something makes it easier to do it, I believe that it does since you are not as fearful of it since it might not seem like such a big deal.

If you believe that, then you cannot believe this:
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
Now as you said, in "normal", moral people who are not compelled to violence being desensitised to it is not a problem.

Like you appear to say you do.

To address your point: fear isn't the sole reason people aren't instinctively violent to one another. If you are desensitised to real world violence then that doesn't automatically make you more likely to commit to real world violence. If you have evidence of this (which one would assume there is, what with all the desensitised people we readily have access to) then please bring it forward, though until then I think it's silly to believe becoming exposed to x makes you more likely to do x of your own will. I'd argue that if this were the case then we'd see murder, rape and drug crimes increase tenfold with the amount of gore, porn and drug material that everyone's able to access on the internet alone.
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
The second disagreement seems to be whether we could really blame video games for making people of a violent disposition more likely to hurt others (if video games actually do that). I feel like some people with violent fantasies who might otherwise never realise these fantasies could be made to find committing such acts easier if their "natural" disposition to sensitivity around violence was removed. And yeah, in this case it is the blame of the violent fantasist as well as video games, it wouldn't be the fault of a psychologically or neurologically unhinged person who didn't know what they where doing but if someone understands that they are hurting people then I feel differently.

It's still not okay to blame video-games. Same reasoning as stated above applies.
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
I genuinely apologise for saying you were angry, that was kinda immature of me. That was phrased badly, I just wanted to know which parts exactly you had problems with. I hope I have explained myself more properly now. I don't think desensitisation of things make society inherently worse, just that it comes with a fair few dangers and that it is subsequently fair to worry about it when it applies to hurting people.

Apology accepted, though I think you're misrepresenting "potential dangers" as "actual dangers" in your arguments and then pretending that you did no such thing when you respond. I'm probably going to leave the discussion here because I can't see you responding with anything other than your opinion again which is largely based upon trying to justify criminal actions by blaming anything that contains sensitive material - that's something that is harming society, and I don't really want to argue in circles against thinking that's reminiscent of "she reads books? BURN THE WITCH!".
Last edited by Gynx; Mar 31, 2015 at 02:15 AM.
collect snots from the nose
I assumed that blaming the shooter went without saying but I guess not. Talking about all the desensitised people around I thought I should give the definition of desensitisation: "make (someone) less likely to feel shock or distress at scenes of cruelty or suffering by overexposure to such images." or "free (someone) from a phobia or neurosis by gradually exposing them to the thing that is feared."

I am not saying you will tend towards harming others as soon as you are not afraid or disgusted by the thought of doing so. But you are way less likely to do it if you are afraid of the seriousness or disgusted (out of human nature) by extreme violence and I for one would rather keep people scared or murdering the fuck out of me for fun. Not because I expect people to automatically want to (although I wouldn't blame them, I'm pretty annoying), but because I know there is a chance of someone wanting to, however small it is, and if they see violent as absurd and subsequently scary (we fear the unknown and unfamiliar, it's human nature) I will feel safer, however irrational that is. And I am not saying that this sort of desensitisation is possible through the media and I doubt that it is.

And yeah, our views of responsibility differ, I view all the causes of an even as responsible whereas you seem to think that blame must be placed on a single person. While not understanding your view I respect that you don't want to discus it anymore.

As for your request for evidence as to desensitisation's link to violence, people seem to be too concerned about exposure to violence causing desensitisation to do any studies on desensitisation's effect on violent behaviour. Nevertheless, studies where the null hypothesis isn't rejected are usually posted somewhere and I couldn't find anything of relevance with the keywords so there is no evidence otherwise. At this point I am still slightly iffy on what you mean by "desensitised people"...
Good morning sweet princess