Do violent video games, pc games and violent movies encourage violence?

[udonoogen]

The threshold for violence & sexuality in films & video/pc games goes up a few steps every year. At its release, the game "Mortal Kombat" faced quite a bit of controversy due to its violence/gore content. Most people on this forum would agree that the graphics, although quite advanced for the time, are subpar in the quality standards of today's games. Similarly, a few years ago, Lara Croft's overexaggerated body structure caused quite a media stir. Nowadays, there is growing controversy over real and actual nudity in games like Acclaim's upcoming "BMXXX."

My question is this... does the increasingly violent content of video games, pc games, and movies desensitize people to acts of violence? Does it encourage violence in the real world? Copy-cat shootings, imitations, and the like? Do you think films and video games give ideas for new ways to facilitate violence, or make violence a way of life that we have to deal with?

Games are definitely getting more and more realistic as technology gets better. What do you think about the Army developing these first-person shooter games? Are you finding yourself wanting to see more and more realistic skins/environments just because it's cooler and more "real?" Why?

I'm asking these questions because I'm trying to formulate a thesis for my research paper. So far I am inclined to say yes, the content of these mediums does encourage violence. Thanks for your input.

 

[Linflas]

No. The world we live in today is no more or less violent than in the past. The big difference is our ability to instantly beam news around the globe within seconds of the actual event.

 

[udonoogen]

Originally posted by: Linflas
No. The world we live in today is no more or less violent than in the past. The big difference is our ability to instantly beam news around the globe within seconds of the actual event.

The nature of the violence has changed though, don't you agree? People were not killing each other with AK-47's back in the 1500's. People still fight for ideological, religious, etc. ... whatever they may be. But in the same way the nature of war has changed, I think culture that it occurs in has changed.

I am not blaming all of the world's wars on the game "Counterstrike" ... but what I am saying is that do you think games like "Counterstrike" desensitize people that play them to portrayals of violence ... perhaps giving some a greater propensity to kill and act out on it? Most of us are sane and would scoff at the idea because we have "restraint" ... but to what extent has exposure to these games and films influenced us? Do we view the violence in our world a little bit differently? Are we more quick to resort to it in our own lives or support our government in its use?

edit: clarification

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Do all those priests watch Japanese Anime or violent rape movies, or might the sexual abuse have been going on for centuries, but were the numbers not revealed till the past years? Do countries where watching movies or cartoons is forbidden and you aren't allowed to have a computer have a 0% crime rate and no violence? Or did the Taliban still have a tiny bit of violence hidden somewhere in it? Good thing the Spanish didn't have computer games or movies yet in the time of the Inquisition and the conquering of America, or image how much murder, torture and rape there would have been otherwise!

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: udonoogen

Originally posted by: Linflas
No. The world we live in today is no more or less violent than in the past. The big difference is our ability to instantly beam news around the globe within seconds of the actual event.

The nature of the violence has changed though, don't you agree? People were not killing each other with AK-47's back in the 1500's. In the same way, I think culture has changed. People do fight for ideological, religious, and other reasons ... whatever they may be. I am not blaming all of the world's wars on the game "Counterstrike" ... but what I am saying is that do you think games like "Counterstrike" desensitize people that play them to portrayals of violence ... perhaps giving some a greater propensity to kill and act out on it? Most of us are sane and would scoff at the idea because we have "restraint" ... but to what extent has exposure to these games and films influenced us? Do we view the violence in our world a little bit differently? Are we more quick to resort to it in our own lives or support our government in its use?

Oh, the fact that they were killing eachother with swords, axes, maces, morningstars, lances, spears, arrows and all kinds of other weaponry makes it far less ghastly indeed, imagine dying to an AK-47 rather than slowly being chopped to pieces or clubbed to death! How terrible must that be!

Do you really think that, if all those games used 16th century weaponry instead, people would suddenly make swords again to kill eachother in real life?
Except from the occasional freak of course, who would figure out another way to kill someone if we'd ban all kinds of entertainment.

 

[canadianpsycho]

Shut up, or I'll kill you.


😀

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: udonoogen

Originally posted by: Linflas
No. The world we live in today is no more or less violent than in the past. The big difference is our ability to instantly beam news around the globe within seconds of the actual event.

The nature of the violence has changed though, don't you agree? People were not killing each other with AK-47's back in the 1500's. In the same way, I think culture has changed. People do fight for ideological, religious, and other reasons ... whatever they may be. I am not blaming all of the world's wars on the game "Counterstrike" ... but what I am saying is that do you think games like "Counterstrike" desensitize people that play them to portrayals of violence ... perhaps giving some a greater propensity to kill and act out on it? Most of us are sane and would scoff at the idea because we have "restraint" ... but to what extent has exposure to these games and films influenced us? Do we view the violence in our world a little bit differently? Are we more quick to resort to it in our own lives or support our government in its use?

Dead is dead whether by AK-47 or by a crossbow bolt. All the AK-47 changes is the efficiency. If anything I think we are more rather than less sensative to death. I was raised in a culture where grief was a private thing. If a loved one died in a car crash you buried them and placed flowers on their grave rather than maintain a public roadside memorial at the spot they died. When a schoolmate was killed they would announce it over the PA and have a moment of silence before we all resumed our daily activities. We had no need for grief counselors since that was expected to be dealt with at home.

 

[Tominator]

There is no doubt that continued exposure to violence increases it's acceptance. History proves that exposure to ANY activity makes it more acceptable. The question should be how much violence will influence one to the point of hurting someone. That will never be answered as each person will react differently.

Does it encourage violence. Yes it does, but I'm against any of the laws proposed to date and cannot see supporting any law limiting access to games with violent content. I am for proper warnings on packages and parental involvement.

 

[udonoogen]

I am not arguing violence is not the cause of war ... in the same way sexuality on television and games is not the cause of sex crimes. Such a claim would be really unbased and quite difficult to prove in light of what you two have argued. Does it encourage and promote violence though? I think the sexuality claim is indeed a little more of a stretch in its implications ... so let's just end that topic. =) My paper is actually more focused on violence. It's for my Poli Sci class. Thanks for all your input guys and gals.

- - - -

ok the AK-47 thing was something i just pulled out of the air. my bad (it's the influence from counterstrike). i think i was getting at what you were saying Linflas ... about how methods/efficiency of warfare have changed.

 

[udonoogen]

Originally posted by: Tominator
There is no doubt that continued exposure to violence increases it's acceptance. History proves that exposure to ANY activity makes it more acceptable. The question should be how much violence will influence one to the point of hurting someone. That will never be answered as each person will react differently.

Does it encourage violence. Yes it does, but I'm against any of the laws proposed to date and cannot see supporting any law limiting access to games with violent content. I am for proper warnings on packages and parental involvement.

When does the threshhold of "too real" in a game become, indeed, "too real." What is the line that separates learning the skills to kill and playing a game? Parental guidance should be upfront, most definitely. But there are far too many ignorant parents out there that let their kids play with anything.

I recall in the past a bunch of copy-cat killings of kids acting out characters in movies and games. I don't know the exact details so it makes for a poor argument ... but I'm sure you've heard of them too. Also, Timothy McVeigh ... he was reading this one book that could be classified as hate propaganda ... the "Turner diaries" ... that pretty much outlined how to blow up a federal building with fertilizer. I'm all for the first amendment when it's in my favor ... but when people start getting hurt ... when should an authority jump in and say ... okay that's enough?

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: udonoogen

Originally posted by: Tominator
There is no doubt that continued exposure to violence increases it's acceptance. History proves that exposure to ANY activity makes it more acceptable. The question should be how much violence will influence one to the point of hurting someone. That will never be answered as each person will react differently.

Does it encourage violence. Yes it does, but I'm against any of the laws proposed to date and cannot see supporting any law limiting access to games with violent content. I am for proper warnings on packages and parental involvement.

When does the threshhold of "too real" in a game become, indeed, "too real." What is the line that separates learning the skills to kill and playing a game? Parental guidance should be upfront, most definitely. But there are far too many ignorant parents out there that let their kids play with anything.

I recall in the past a bunch of copy-cat killings of kids acting out characters in movies and games. I don't know the exact details so it makes for a poor argument ... but I'm sure you've heard of them too. Also, Timothy McVeigh ... he was reading this one book that could be classified as hate propaganda ... the "Turner diaries" ... that pretty much outlined how to blow up a federal building with fertilizer. I'm all for the first amendment when it's in my favor ... but when people start getting hurt ... when should an authority jump in and say ... okay that's enough?

You know the English celebrate a holiday every year known as Guy Fawkes Day. The celebration is in regards to a foiled plot to blow up the English Parliament in 1605. My point here is that nothing we see today is new other than the methods employed. People have been plotting to over throw governments since the day governments were established. Likewise they have been raping, murdering, plundering, and pillaging long before we had any notion of movies or video games. Timothy McVeigh would likely have blown up that building even if he had never heard of "The Turner Diaries".

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Overpopulation may encourage violence and crime though. If you put 6,000,000,000 people in the same space where there used to be 500,000,000, you are bound to get more conflicts, and a criminal will have more potential targets available, and more competition nearby. That, and the media may report more extensively on it than it used to do in the 16th century.

 

[udonoogen]

Originally posted by: Linflas
You know the English celebrate a holiday every year known as Guy Fawkes Day. The celebration is in regards to a foiled plot to blow up the English Parliament in 1605. My point here is that nothing we see today is new other than the methods employed. People have been plotting to over throw governments since the day governments were established. Likewise they have been raping, murderering, plundering, and pillaging long before we had any notion of movies or video games. Timothy McVeigh would likely have blown up that building even if he had never heard of "The Turner Diaries".

i don't think the number of guys like timothy mcveigh would be drastically reduced if books like the turner diaries were not in circulation. it is my personal opinion that hate material like that shouldn't be allowed to circulate. like i said before, video games are not the cause of war. however, they desensitize people to killing "things" on a screen ... much like how people do in war. killing becomes easier because not only the means are easier (the efficiency) but because one has killed these little blips or people-like things on the screen so many times. they may not even represent human life to the person doing the killing. and this ... this is perhaps what motivates kids to imitate and act out. or perhaps this is what makes it easier for them or anyone else who has played these games ... to accomplish what they do. sure, the game didn't *make* them do anything, but it sure made it easier, gave them ideas, "trained" them to do certain things and "trained" them to be unemotional about it... yea?

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Overpopulation may encourage violence and crime though. If you put 6,000,000,000 people in the same space where there used to be 500,000,000, you are bound to get more conflicts, and a criminal will have more potential targets available, and more competition nearby. That, and the media may report more extensively on it than it used to do in the 16th century.

alright ... so getting out of the 16th century ... what about rising statistics in the past few decades?

edit: im going to sleep soon now ... ill check this in the morning and when i get back to school. thanks guys and gals

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: udonoogen

Originally posted by: Linflas
You know the English celebrate a holiday every year known as Guy Fawkes Day. The celebration is in regards to a foiled plot to blow up the English Parliament in 1605. My point here is that nothing we see today is new other than the methods employed. People have been plotting to over throw governments since the day governments were established. Likewise they have been raping, murderering, plundering, and pillaging long before we had any notion of movies or video games. Timothy McVeigh would likely have blown up that building even if he had never heard of "The Turner Diaries".

i don't think the number of guys like timothy mcveigh would be drastically reduced if books like the turner diaries were not in circulation. it is my personal opinion that hate material like that shouldn't be allowed to circulate. like i said before, video games are not the cause of war. however, they desensitize people to killing "things" on a screen ... much like how people do in war. killing becomes easier because not only the means are easier (the efficiency) but because one has killed these little blips or people-like things on the screen so many times. they may not even represent human life to the person doing the killing. and this ... this is perhaps what motivates kids to imitate and act out. or perhaps this is what makes it easier for them or anyone else who has played these games ... to accomplish what they do. sure, the game didn't *make* them do anything, but it sure made it easier, gave them ideas, "trained" them to do certain things and "trained" them to be unemotional about it... yea?

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Overpopulation may encourage violence and crime though. If you put 6,000,000,000 people in the same space where there used to be 500,000,000, you are bound to get more conflicts, and a criminal will have more potential targets available, and more competition nearby. That, and the media may report more extensively on it than it used to do in the 16th century.

alright ... so getting out of the 16th century ... what about rising statistics in the past few decades?

edit: im going to sleep soon now ... ill check this in the morning and when i get back to school. thanks guys and gals

Sorry I just don't see how computer toons can desensatize someone to death. If anything we are further removed from death than anytime in human history. 99% of us don't have to kill our food and never see anyone dead other than in a funeral home. This is vastly different than things just 2 generations ago where people likely saw death up close and personal a lot more frequently. I recall when my great-grandmother died they had the funeral in my grandmother's house. I was around 7 years old and still recall the heebie jeebies I got from sleeping in the same house with a dead body. Visit any cemetary and you will be surprised at the number of graves of children up until the 1940's. Until modern medicine and vacinations childhood was tough to survive. There is a huge gulf between running around with a computer toon killing stuff and the reality of killing a living breathing human being face to face.

 

[C'DaleRider]

My point here is that nothing we see today is new other than the methods employed.

Very true, but I think it's much easier for one to stand 50 yards away and pull a trigger vs. having to feel the victim struggle on the end of a knife.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: udonoogen
alright ... so getting out of the 16th century ... what about rising statistics in the past few decades?

Try the society becoming more personal and faster. Parents don't have time to raise their kids, let alone for raising other kids (people used to look out for eachothers kids, and 'educate' them when and where needed).
People are more concerned about their own wellfare, and their own needs, than being social rolemodels.

A 22 year old guy addressed 2 18 year olds about their behavior on the street a few weeks ago, and was beaten to death by them. Onlookers didn't do a thing to help the guy.
Most people speak out against meaningless violence like this, but rare few will say anything when they see it happen, let alone that they will actually do something against it.

50 years ago only one parent worked, and the other parent stayed at home to take care of the kids. Nowadays around here it is quite hard to get around for most singles, let alone for pairs if only one of them works. Buying a house can only be done by either someone with a very good job, or by a pair where both of them work.

Note: This does not mean that all those kids get too little attention, but it will mean that there will be very little contact between people in the neighbourhood (unless they have kids of the same age), let alone people outside of it. If you hardly know your neighbours, you will have less 'social control' in the neighbourhood, people won't drop by to tell you what your kids did, or whom they hang out with. Singles won't be checked on at all, and the moment a member of a family leaves the house he or she is just about free to do whatever pleases him or her.

Not like the old, small communities where everyone knew eachother and looked out for eachother. The only such form still left in the cities is gangs, where they take care of the people in the gang, and only beat up those outside of it.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: udonoogen

Originally posted by: Linflas
You know the English celebrate a holiday every year known as Guy Fawkes Day. The celebration is in regards to a foiled plot to blow up the English Parliament in 1605. My point here is that nothing we see today is new other than the methods employed. People have been plotting to over throw governments since the day governments were established. Likewise they have been raping, murderering, plundering, and pillaging long before we had any notion of movies or video games. Timothy McVeigh would likely have blown up that building even if he had never heard of "The Turner Diaries".

i don't think the number of guys like timothy mcveigh would be drastically reduced if books like the turner diaries were not in circulation. it is my personal opinion that hate material like that shouldn't be allowed to circulate. like i said before, video games are not the cause of war. however, they desensitize people to killing "things" on a screen ... much like how people do in war. killing becomes easier because not only the means are easier (the efficiency) but because one has killed these little blips or people-like things on the screen so many times. they may not even represent human life to the person doing the killing. and this ... this is perhaps what motivates kids to imitate and act out. or perhaps this is what makes it easier for them or anyone else who has played these games ... to accomplish what they do. sure, the game didn't *make* them do anything, but it sure made it easier, gave them ideas, "trained" them to do certain things and "trained" them to be unemotional about it... yea?

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Overpopulation may encourage violence and crime though. If you put 6,000,000,000 people in the same space where there used to be 500,000,000, you are bound to get more conflicts, and a criminal will have more potential targets available, and more competition nearby. That, and the media may report more extensively on it than it used to do in the 16th century.

alright ... so getting out of the 16th century ... what about rising statistics in the past few decades?

edit: im going to sleep soon now ... ill check this in the morning and when i get back to school. thanks guys and gals

You actually think that a video game desensitizes people to death and violence? Try speaking to a veteran about how real death became to them on the front line. Ask a vet how "easy" it is to kill someone. These people go into a conflict knowing that their life is in real danger, not sitting behind a computer screen hoping they dont get AWPed. See how well a computer game, mouse, and keyboard train a person to use an AK-47, an M-16, a shotgun, 9mm. You want to blame somebody for desensitizing people to violence? Blame the news, where murders, rapes, and assaults are just thrown around as if nothing. To a sane person, a video game is simply a video game. To someone who is not there, anything can be an instance to imitate. Hell, watching a football game on tv could cause them to go spear a little old lady walking down the street. And then the real question is, where are the parents in all this? Making laws to counteract poor parenting just doesn't fly for me.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider

My point here is that nothing we see today is new other than the methods employed.

Very true, but I think it's much easier for one to stand 50 yards away and pull a trigger vs. having to feel the victim struggle on the end of a knife.

But that has been possible since the development of the bow and arrow. Admittedly it takes more skill to effectively use a bow but you can kill someone with one from a distance. Add to that that guns have been with us now for around 500 years it has been possible for quite a long time to kill someone from a distance.

 

[kami]

No.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider

My point here is that nothing we see today is new other than the methods employed.

Very true, but I think it's much easier for one to stand 50 yards away and pull a trigger vs. having to feel the victim struggle on the end of a knife.

But that has been possible since the development of the bow and arrow. Admittedly it takes more skill to effectively use a bow but you can kill someone with one from a distance. Add to that that guns have been with us now for around 500 years it has been possible for quite a long time to kill someone from a distance.

Sling and spear have been around for a little while too 🙂

Edit: Not to mention a simply thrown rock.

 

[udonoogen]

okay absolute last post and im going to sleep. it's almost 530 in the AM. =)

Originally posted by: Linflas
Sorry I just don't see how computer toons can desensatize someone to death. If anything we are further removed from death than anytime in human history. 99% of us don't have to kill our food and never see anyone dead other than in a funeral home.

the problem is that these "toons" are getting more and more realistic with every gaming engine that is churned out. when kids are shooting at life-like humans in a video game, will that still be acceptable? it's just a game after all.

Originally posted by: BigJ2078
You actually think that a video game desensitizes people to death and violence? Try speaking to a veteran about how real death became to them on the front line. Ask a vet how "easy" it is to kill someone. These people go into a conflict knowing that their life is in real danger, not sitting behind a computer screen hoping they dont get AWPed. See how well a computer game, mouse, and keyboard train a person to use an AK-47, an M-16, a shotgun, 9mm. You want to blame somebody for desensitizing people to violence? Blame the news, where murders, rapes, and assaults are just thrown around as if nothing. To a sane person, a video game is simply a video game. To someone who is not there, anything can be an instance to imitate. Hell, watching a football game on tv could cause them to go spear a little old lady walking down the street. And then the real question is, where are the parents in all this? Making laws to counteract poor parenting just doesn't fly for me.

i'm not sure if i really do or not (that is, think that a video game can desensitize people to death and violence) ... i myself partake in these games and am not psychotically killing kids with an AWP. but for the sake of my paper, i am arguing yes. to address your argument for argument's sake ... there will be a time when these games are not going to be played by mouse and keyboard. true, you're not facing true danger. simulation is not realization. however, it's as close as you can get without risking your life. that is why the army uses simulators to train its forces. which brings me back to that entire army game that the US Army just released. don't you think theres some type of ulterior motive involved? I do blame the news, also. But equal blame rests in the films and video games that trump such acts of violence and make it palatable to kids. Making laws to counteract bad parenting seems pretty good to me. There will always be bad parents. It is not the responsibility of the government to raise our nation's children ... but it shouldn't stand back idly while bad parents just let their kids run rampant. Certain measures need to be taken so that even bad parenting doesn't affect our kids so adversely to the point where they commit acts of violence and murder.

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
The only such form still left in the cities is gangs, where they take care of the people in the gang, and only beat up those outside of it.

what you're saying is true. causal factors of violence do appear in the home. i'm not completely sure if that's relevant to what we're talking about here. that is, does the violence portrayed in film and telelvision, video and pc games encourage the youth of our society to act on it? does it desensitize them to commiting such acts or apathy in reacting to such acts? i would like to argue yes in my paper.

edit: format and clarification

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: udonoogen

what you're saying is true. causal factors of violence do appear in the home. i'm not completely sure if that's relevant to what we're talking about here. that is, does the violence portrayed in film and telelvision, video and pc games encourage the youth of our society to act on it? does it desensitize them to commiting such acts or apathy in reacting to such acts? i would like to argue yes in my paper.

No. If the kids learn that social interaction is important, that you should care for eachother, look out for eachother and try and prevent not only your own missteps, but also those of others, they will be less antisocial than kids who learned that only the person is important, and that you should ignore other opinions, or beat them out of the one stating them.

Compare:
1. Kid plays and talks with its parents every day, and goes out with them in the weekends.
2. Kid sees its parents only for 5 minutes during Christmas dinner, and then there is no time for talking as they are too busy watching Oprah. Spends all its time in front of the TV/computer or out in the street.

Which kid do you think will be more socially adept? Even if you only let the second kid watch 'soft' TV shows and play non-violent games, it will still lack an important part of the upbringing.

Edit: I hate it when a family is sitting in the train/bus/whatever and the parents don't bother looking after the kids, and don't even tell them off when they start bothering other passengers. Sometimes I really feel like teaching the kids the important life lesson called 'What to do with anti-social parents and their offspring'.

 

[Ciber]

I agree with Skyclad1uhm1. Most of our problems right now are thanks to stupid irresponsible parents, i mean how many 16-20 year olds did you see killing their classmates or just killing each other over sneakers or killing someone else just because they walked by their neighborhood in the early days?

My 11 year old cousin is one of these disrespectful little brats with no manners, because both of the parents work and once they get home they either have more work with them or are too tired so they just tell her to go do her homework or go watch tv. You can forget about them telling the kid anything now cause she will just start crying or god knows what, so they let her do whatever she wants so she doesnt cry and bother them.

Heh, i remember when i was a kid, we would always get in trouble because ALL of the parents knew each other and had no problem giving us a slap in the ass and then telling our parents which would then slap us in the ass again and ground us, and god help us if we were stupid enough to talk back to an adult back then. Now if an adult says something to a kid the person will either get beat up by the kid or cursed out or the kid will get the parent which will then curse out the adult and tell him to mind his own business or beat them up or call the cops on them.

 

[Ciber]

udonoogen, you should do your thesis on stupid parents 😀 I personally think blaming movies or games or anything along those lines is nothing short of laughable and just plain silly, not to mention i think people who blame these things are pretty stupid 😛

Btw, like every single male(including me) in my family has been playing video games since the atari and watching violent movies, we havent killed anyone yet.

solo mi opinion

 

[SagaLore]

Do sex chat rooms, porn videos, and erotic video games encourage sexual misconduct?

Your question answered itself.