really? this is what you’re doing? you’re really saying this, in the year of our lord 2018? Even though the notion that violence in media results in violence IRL can be easily debunked with a quick google?
Can it? I will be glad to do some googling, but I recall peer-reviewed papers forty years ago demonstrating links between media behaviors and real world behaviors. And if you ask the POLICE about it, they’ll just laugh at you; they are so used to finding violent media when they search the personal effects of one of these crazies they take it for granted that it will be there. Same is true for pedophiles and rapists; these people all have some really really sick stuff on their computers.
Anyway, back to the aforementioned papers. Know when those papers about media behavior came out, mostly? When we, as a nation, wanted to cut down on teen smoking. The data showed that a substantial minority of teens were susceptible to media-based messages; that they were in fact learning behaviors from the media.
Thus, a huge push to get Hollywood to get the cigarettes out of the mouths of their stars. A young, handsome Richard Chamberlain, playing Dr. Kildare, discussing patient care with other doctors with a cigarette in his mouth in a smoke filled room in the hospital was creating a desire in teens to smoke by glamorizing it. Nobody doubted it, and we had the scientific papers to prove it.
And now you claim that science has flipped? Hm. This should be interesting, because you have to follow the money behind the research. To wit:
At any rate, we all know the history from there. Hollywood agreed to remove the smokes unless it was part of a creative context (in general, smoking on the screen today generally serves the same role as the black hat in a Western — — it tells you who the bad guys are), but they did so kicking and screaming “censorship” as they did.
Then afterward, the companies who MAKE the smokes got more and more strident about denying the links between smoking and ill health, sent their messages out in other ways, until they got their asses sued off by various state AG’s.
Let’s summarize what we learned from the cigarette/media history:
- The people who profit from the “Issue” don’t give a shit about anyone who is impacted by the issue. Profit first.
- Again, those people who profit will do whatever they can to deny any link between their product and the “issue”. They’ll hold people who disagree with them up for public abuse, try to make them comical in their views, and they’ll buy “scholars” with fancy degrees to write fake science papers disputing the links between their product and the problem.
- Hollywood can always be counted on defend their content, no matter what, and scream “censorship” if somebody suggests they need to clean up what’s on the screen.
that’s a thing that you just did? And you were doing so well, mate! (Also it’s cute that you think a thousand hours is a lot of gaming. Bruh, I’ve clocked at least 20k, and I haven’t killed a single person.)
I assume you realize that in the large worldwide community of gamers, holding up ONE PERSON as a refutation of a broader point is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. So, “bruh”, the fact that you aren’t nuts doesn’t mean the gamer sitting next to you might be a little crazy, although he SEEMS like a nice enough dude……. and might be wanking off to the idea of getting even with all the kids at school that bully him. And all those vidgames, which to you are just good innocent fun, are TO HIM desensitizing him to violence.