Originally Posted by
Zelda
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
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
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
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
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
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.