VA Tech tragedy. 33 dead. *Shooter sent photos and video to NBC*
- Thread starter GuilewasNK
- Start date
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Strell']Oh.
We cannot choose our choices as in what is presented to us as options, not "choice" as in what we ultimately do.
I.e. if I go to Taco Bell, I can't ask for a pepperoni pizza, since it's not on the menu. So I have to make do with what is already there.
That's what was meant earlier, right?[/QUOTE]
precisely.
We cannot choose our choices as in what is presented to us as options, not "choice" as in what we ultimately do.
I.e. if I go to Taco Bell, I can't ask for a pepperoni pizza, since it's not on the menu. So I have to make do with what is already there.
That's what was meant earlier, right?[/QUOTE]
precisely.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='David85']I do, but who made him? His family? Who had years to try to help? His family, and the college, and it seems the cops.[/quote]
Well - the other kid has a very respectable job.
I think that it's inevitable that parents are just going to roll snakeeyes.
I have alot of sympathy for the family.
Well - the other kid has a very respectable job.
I think that it's inevitable that parents are just going to roll snakeeyes.
I have alot of sympathy for the family.
oh man i heard on the radio that one of the families in TX that had a child die in the shooting, in their hurry to get to Virginia, in backing the car out of the driveway, apparently ran over their 8 year old child. Two children now dead and the mother is sedated in the hospital.
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']on drudge right now...[/quote]
Boys and girls, this is how you make a killer. Imagine growing up with that as your grandfather, and with a parent that was raised by him.
Also, surprise surprise, he was bullied.
Boys and girls, this is how you make a killer. Imagine growing up with that as your grandfather, and with a parent that was raised by him.
Also, surprise surprise, he was bullied.
[quote name='evilmax17']Boys and girls, this is how you make a killer. Imagine growing up with that as your grandfather, and with a parent that was raised by him.
Also, surprise surprise, he was bullied.[/QUOTE]
Now, this doesn't excuse his actions in ANY way whatsoever but it just goes to show you that people (high schoolers in particular) still haven't
ing learned since Columbine and the many other school shootings that you can only push people so far until they're just gone.
Now, if I was in charge of a class and a student said to another student "go back to china", they'd be gone.
Also, surprise surprise, he was bullied.[/QUOTE]
Now, this doesn't excuse his actions in ANY way whatsoever but it just goes to show you that people (high schoolers in particular) still haven't
ing learned since Columbine and the many other school shootings that you can only push people so far until they're just gone.Now, if I was in charge of a class and a student said to another student "go back to china", they'd be gone.
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='postaboy']oh man i heard on the radio that one of the families in TX that had a child die in the shooting, in their hurry to get to Virginia, in backing the car out of the driveway, apparently ran over their 8 year old child. Two children now dead and the mother is sedated in the hospital.[/QUOTE]
Holy.
Although, I can't find a trace of that to be true, even looking on local Texas papers.
Holy
.Although, I can't find a trace of that to be true, even looking on local Texas papers.
A
Apossum
Guest
[quote name='ahmedmalik']Blame "Oldboy" :
[/QUOTE]
, no wonder my korean film prof got pissed when I asked to write about the vengeance trilogy today.
That'll suck if people associate a masterpiece with Cho. The movie doesn't have anything to do with what he did. Revenge was a complicated subject in that movie, Cho justing snapped and took it out on everyone.
, no wonder my korean film prof got pissed when I asked to write about the vengeance trilogy today. That'll suck if people associate a masterpiece with Cho. The movie doesn't have anything to do with what he did. Revenge was a complicated subject in that movie, Cho just
ing snapped and took it out on everyone.
David85
Banned
[quote name='evilmax17']Boys and girls, this is how you make a killer. Imagine growing up with that as your grandfather, and with a parent that was raised by him.
Also, surprise surprise, he was bullied.[/QUOTE]
Told you it's aed up family.
To me it seems they got two kids, one went to a great college and was "normal", the other was always a loser child. They ditched the lsoer because he was a dumbass and was gonig to some shity college that they didn't care about. There is always a reason why someone is insane, sure it's some brain thing messed up but the family didn't even care about him.
Also, surprise surprise, he was bullied.[/QUOTE]
Told you it's a
ed up family.To me it seems they got two kids, one went to a great college and was "normal", the other was always a loser child. They ditched the lsoer because he was a dumbass and was gonig to some shity college that they didn't care about. There is always a reason why someone is insane, sure it's some brain thing messed up but the family didn't even care about him.
Soodmeg
CAGiversary!
[quote name='David85']Told you it's a ed up family.
To me it seems they got two kids, one went to a great college and was "normal", the other was always a loser child. They ditched the lsoer because he was a dumbass and was gonig to some shity college that they didn't care about. There is always a reason why someone is insane, sure it's some brain thing messed up but the family didn't even care about him.[/quote]
He went to Virginia Tech noting Bosnia. Your starting to piss me off with you dumbass ing logic.
ed up family.To me it seems they got two kids, one went to a great college and was "normal", the other was always a loser child. They ditched the lsoer because he was a dumbass and was gonig to some shity college that they didn't care about. There is always a reason why someone is insane, sure it's some brain thing messed up but the family didn't even care about him.[/quote]
He went to Virginia Tech not
ing Bosnia. Your starting to piss me off with you dumbass ing logic.
A
Apossum
Guest
[quote name='David85']Told you it's a ed up family.
To me it seems they got two kids, one went to a great college and was "normal", the other was always a loser child. They ditched the lsoer because he was a dumbass and was gonig to some shity college that they didn't care about. There is always a reason why someone is insane, sure it's some brain thing messed up but the family didn't even care about him.[/QUOTE]
just stop talking. the guysing grandkid just shot up 32 people and offed himself-- you think he's thinking rationally right now? Apparently you've never had to grieve. VA Tech isn't a shitty college either
ed up family.To me it seems they got two kids, one went to a great college and was "normal", the other was always a loser child. They ditched the lsoer because he was a dumbass and was gonig to some shity college that they didn't care about. There is always a reason why someone is insane, sure it's some brain thing messed up but the family didn't even care about him.[/QUOTE]
just stop talking. the guys
ing grandkid just shot up 32 people and offed himself-- you think he's thinking rationally right now? Apparently you've never had to grieve. VA Tech isn't a shitty college either
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Now, this doesn't excuse his actions in ANY way whatsoever but it just goes to show you that people (high schoolers in particular) still haven't ing learned since Columbine and the many other school shootings that you can only push people so far until they're just gone.
Now, if I was in charge of a class and a student said to another student "go back to china", they'd be gone.[/QUOTE]
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the same.
I'm reallying tired of the older generation of Americans being so shocked when these things happen. Maybe it's my younger age and growing up in the wake of Columbine and the like, but at this point, while I am still thrown back when something like this happens, I sure as hell don't react like seemingly anyone over the age of 40.
To them, school is still in that idyllic Wonder Years/Happy Days sort ofing fantasy, where the cool guy wears a leather jacket and drives a motorcycle, the nerdy kids stick to themselves, and every other ing retarded cliched archetype of these so-called developmental years.
I guess it's just my own anger lashing out at this sort of thing - being that I didn't exactly have a good time in school after 5th grade, when all this sort of bullshit begins - but I can'ting stand it that no one seems to give a shit about bullying.
Is it ever going to stop? No, but don'ting tell me it's not capable of pushing people over the edge. It's like everyone wants to pretend there's nothing wrong with their All-American star quarterback, even though he's being a total douche bucket to tons of kids ALL THE ING TIME.
Also goes to show that Americans are still reallying petty and on their high horse on how great of a nation we are. We are a great nation, but we are full of ing assholes (myself included). I have to agree with RvB here - if I'm ever teaching a class of some kind (which I might do in my future, given my English degree), and I hear the slightest thing along those lines, the er is out of my class immediately.
My college student-run-paper interviewed some Asian students once in one of their columns, and they too talked about hearing "chinaman" jokes all the time. Makes meing sick.
I don't even like it when I'm dealing with clients at work, and when they find out I'm down in Texas, they try to cozy up with a lot of slurs against Mexicans. Just so damn infuriating.
ing learned since Columbine and the many other school shootings that you can only push people so far until they're just gone.Now, if I was in charge of a class and a student said to another student "go back to china", they'd be gone.[/QUOTE]
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the same.
I'm really
ing tired of the older generation of Americans being so shocked when these things happen. Maybe it's my younger age and growing up in the wake of Columbine and the like, but at this point, while I am still thrown back when something like this happens, I sure as hell don't react like seemingly anyone over the age of 40.To them, school is still in that idyllic Wonder Years/Happy Days sort of
ing fantasy, where the cool guy wears a leather jacket and drives a motorcycle, the nerdy kids stick to themselves, and every other ing retarded cliched archetype of these so-called developmental years. I guess it's just my own anger lashing out at this sort of thing - being that I didn't exactly have a good time in school after 5th grade, when all this sort of bullshit begins - but I can't
ing stand it that no one seems to give a shit about bullying.Is it ever going to stop? No, but don't
ing tell me it's not capable of pushing people over the edge. It's like everyone wants to pretend there's nothing wrong with their All-American star quarterback, even though he's being a total douche bucket to tons of kids ALL THE ING TIME.Also goes to show that Americans are still really
ing petty and on their high horse on how great of a nation we are. We are a great nation, but we are full of ing assholes (myself included). I have to agree with RvB here - if I'm ever teaching a class of some kind (which I might do in my future, given my English degree), and I hear the slightest thing along those lines, the er is out of my class immediately.My college student-run-paper interviewed some Asian students once in one of their columns, and they too talked about hearing "chinaman" jokes all the time. Makes me
ing sick.I don't even like it when I'm dealing with clients at work, and when they find out I'm down in Texas, they try to cozy up with a lot of slurs against Mexicans. Just so damn infuriating.
PhrostByte
CAG Newbie
You know what? I'm going to make a very unpopular statement now and I'm ready for the backlash. Like all of you, I disagree that video games caused this man to shoot up a bunch of college kids. To assume something like that would pretty much entail an obsurd misunderstanding of behavioral causality. However, when tards like Jack Thompson say things like "he trained on Doom, he trained on Counter-Strike", he does have a point. This country's media is engrained with violence, both overt and more subtle forms. We're bombared with violence on TV, movies, music, and yes... video games. It wasn't always this way... The fact of the matter is... when TV and its portrayals of fantasy (sex, violence, etc.) came around, America became more violent. That's simply what happened. Don't get me wrong, IT DIDN'T CAUSE PEOPLE TO BECOME MORE VIOLENT. It simply correlated with levels of aggression and violence. Now, here's a question. Does violent media make you violent? Or are potentially violent people predisposed to prefer violent media? It doesn't matter... most of us can handle violence in the media because our conception of reality is solid, the line isn't blurred. For this guy, the line wasn't as clear. He might have been completely rational about his decision making path towards the shootings, but you can't disregard the fact that growing up in America, we as a people become desensitized to violence. Think about it... you play GTA, Counter-Strike, Doom, whatever (just like I do), and after a while it doesn't shock you any more. After a while, your heart doesn't jump when a WW2 soldier or a demon-spawn from hell shoots you. It becomes normal. Under experimental conditions, you can measure kids becoming more aggressive towards one another after viewing violent television shows (as compared to a non-violent placebo group). Genetics and/or biology in general obviously play a role, but how can we ever know how large? The watch tower killer in the 60's had a tumor on his hypothalamus, perhaps this guy also had some sort of cancer eroding the parts of the brain responsible for emotions. And genes? Our genes are a blueprint for who we are... but that's all they are. Our genes only give us a template, the rest of our personality evolves completely from what we experience growing up. This guy, obviously experienced a lot of pain... a lot of shunning, a lack of acceptance. In addition to that, he most likely experienced a lot of violence (real or fantasy, my point is the difference might not be as large as we think it is). So please, fellow gamers... please just consider that our biases towards gaming (look where this thread is being held) are holding us back from the bigger picture. The bigger picture; being that this psycho murderer was a product of interaction between his biology, psychology, and sociology.
tards like Jack Thompson say things like "he trained on Doom, he trained on Counter-Strike", he does have a point. This country's media is engrained with violence, both overt and more subtle forms. We're bombared with violence on TV, movies, music, and yes... video games. It wasn't always this way... The fact of the matter is... when TV and its portrayals of fantasy (sex, violence, etc.) came around, America became more violent. That's simply what happened. Don't get me wrong, IT DIDN'T CAUSE PEOPLE TO BECOME MORE VIOLENT. It simply correlated with levels of aggression and violence. Now, here's a question. Does violent media make you violent? Or are potentially violent people predisposed to prefer violent media? It doesn't matter... most of us can handle violence in the media because our conception of reality is solid, the line isn't blurred. For this guy, the line wasn't as clear. He might have been completely rational about his decision making path towards the shootings, but you can't disregard the fact that growing up in America, we as a people become desensitized to violence. Think about it... you play GTA, Counter-Strike, Doom, whatever (just like I do), and after a while it doesn't shock you any more. After a while, your heart doesn't jump when a WW2 soldier or a demon-spawn from hell shoots you. It becomes normal. Under experimental conditions, you can measure kids becoming more aggressive towards one another after viewing violent television shows (as compared to a non-violent placebo group). Genetics and/or biology in general obviously play a role, but how can we ever know how large? The watch tower killer in the 60's had a tumor on his hypothalamus, perhaps this guy also had some sort of cancer eroding the parts of the brain responsible for emotions. And genes? Our genes are a blueprint for who we are... but that's all they are. Our genes only give us a template, the rest of our personality evolves completely from what we experience growing up. This guy, obviously experienced a lot of pain... a lot of shunning, a lack of acceptance. In addition to that, he most likely experienced a lot of violence (real or fantasy, my point is the difference might not be as large as we think it is). So please, fellow gamers... please just consider that our biases towards gaming (look where this thread is being held) are holding us back from the bigger picture. The bigger picture; being that this psycho murderer was a product of interaction between his biology, psychology, and sociology.
PhrostByte
CAG Newbie
[quote name='seanr1221']First, I noticed in some other posts that it seems you are in the field of psychology. Right now in school I'm finishing up my undergrad psych classes. It might make more sense if I explain that I'm on the behavioral side of psych.
Now, the reason I say "choice" isn't real, is because we don't do things due to choice, we do things due to our present stimulus situation, our learning history and our genetics. Driving is a great example of this. Ever drive to a location that you frequently visit, think back and realize you don't even really remember concentrating on it you just...did it? Furthermore, if choice did exists, psych class would be easy as this: "People make choices in life, and these choices depend on what they want to do, well, there's not much outside of that, here's your diploma."
However, things make much more sense when you look at the genetics and the environment. The problem with choice is that we seem to use it when things are going well in our own lives. Ask a rich man and a poor man how they each got to where they are today, and chances are the poor man will give you a better renditions. The rich man might say, "I chose to go to a good school, I chose to work hard, I chose to go on for my PhD, I chose...." Where as the poor man might say, "Well, I got fired from my job, then my wife left me, my kids abandoned me..."
And that's the ultimate problem with believing in a choice. If you want to believe in it, it has to be real all of the time. But it seems like people use it to give themselves a false sense of dignity. I'm sure if you're in psych you've read some Skinner right? If you haven't, Beyond Freedom and Dignity is a great book to pick up and read through. If you're interested in a heavier, science like explanation, I'd suggest About Behaviorism or Science and Human Behavior.
I apologize for any grammatical errors, I just woke up and am getting ready for class.[/quote]
I haven't read either of those... but my Behaviorism professor wrote his own book called "Learning". He's a fairly elderly man (Dr. Charles Catania) and he was just completing his undergrad while the Skinner/Chomsky debate was heating up. He's a brilliant guy and even though his class was pretty difficult (I barely managed to get an A) I probably learned more in it than any other class I've taken thus far... possibly with the exception of my experimental design classes... Anyway, he got me interested in behaviorism... I've always been an atheist and leaned towards determinism in regards to philosophical theory of behavior... but it's a scary thing isn't it? If Cho had no choice in the matter... and he was just reacting to a 24 year chain of stimuli? Who's responsible? Him? Society? God? (If you're a theist?) Maybe nature if you're not? I used to fry my brain debating between determinism and free will... I'm almost finished my undergrad and I still can't decide... maybe there's no need to.
Now, the reason I say "choice" isn't real, is because we don't do things due to choice, we do things due to our present stimulus situation, our learning history and our genetics. Driving is a great example of this. Ever drive to a location that you frequently visit, think back and realize you don't even really remember concentrating on it you just...did it? Furthermore, if choice did exists, psych class would be easy as this: "People make choices in life, and these choices depend on what they want to do, well, there's not much outside of that, here's your diploma."
However, things make much more sense when you look at the genetics and the environment. The problem with choice is that we seem to use it when things are going well in our own lives. Ask a rich man and a poor man how they each got to where they are today, and chances are the poor man will give you a better renditions. The rich man might say, "I chose to go to a good school, I chose to work hard, I chose to go on for my PhD, I chose...." Where as the poor man might say, "Well, I got fired from my job, then my wife left me, my kids abandoned me..."
And that's the ultimate problem with believing in a choice. If you want to believe in it, it has to be real all of the time. But it seems like people use it to give themselves a false sense of dignity. I'm sure if you're in psych you've read some Skinner right? If you haven't, Beyond Freedom and Dignity is a great book to pick up and read through. If you're interested in a heavier, science like explanation, I'd suggest About Behaviorism or Science and Human Behavior.
I apologize for any grammatical errors, I just woke up and am getting ready for class.[/quote]
I haven't read either of those... but my Behaviorism professor wrote his own book called "Learning". He's a fairly elderly man (Dr. Charles Catania) and he was just completing his undergrad while the Skinner/Chomsky debate was heating up. He's a brilliant guy and even though his class was pretty difficult (I barely managed to get an A) I probably learned more in it than any other class I've taken thus far... possibly with the exception of my experimental design classes... Anyway, he got me interested in behaviorism... I've always been an atheist and leaned towards determinism in regards to philosophical theory of behavior... but it's a scary thing isn't it? If Cho had no choice in the matter... and he was just reacting to a 24 year chain of stimuli? Who's responsible? Him? Society? God? (If you're a theist?) Maybe nature if you're not? I used to fry my brain debating between determinism and free will... I'm almost finished my undergrad and I still can't decide... maybe there's no need to.
PhrostByte
CAG Newbie
[quote name='Apossum']of course not--he didn't talk to anyone and he wasn't specific in his video. Despite the guy's psychological problems, there's still reasoning behind his actions that goes deeper than "he's crazy" or "his frontal lobe was malfunctioning." even if it isn't coherent or logical, the pieces of that reason are what's important.
The fact that he felt like he was standing up for other people is what intrigues me. That could mean a lot of things, but I do wonder if his Korean heritage has anything to do with it (not talking ethnicity here, but on an historical level.) It feels dumb to even speculate about that, and I'm sure it looks dumb as well
I'm not trying to figure him out though...no way to do that through the media's representation of him and the scant facts we have.[/quote]
I actually think he was attempting to emulate a Jesus-type figure in his twisted mind. He did it for all those who are ridiculed, belittled, made to feel less than human due to differences in (most obviously) socioeconomic status, but other differences as well. Possibly sex, age, gender, whatever. He feels he's a martyr for the good of humanity. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm supporting his actions, I would never do something like that. I think what he did was dispicable... yet, I must admit I sympathize him. I think if we all pause our bias which results from our disgust of his actions, we might all be able to sympathize with him... PERSONALLY, to me... he seems like a Kurt Cobain type of figure, except instead of killing himself (which I'm not saying is a completely unselfish act), he decided to take his vendetta out on the rest of the world. Obviously immoral, but strangely understandable.
The fact that he felt like he was standing up for other people is what intrigues me. That could mean a lot of things, but I do wonder if his Korean heritage has anything to do with it (not talking ethnicity here, but on an historical level.) It feels dumb to even speculate about that, and I'm sure it looks dumb as well
I'm not trying to figure him out though...no way to do that through the media's representation of him and the scant facts we have.[/quote] I actually think he was attempting to emulate a Jesus-type figure in his twisted mind. He did it for all those who are ridiculed, belittled, made to feel less than human due to differences in (most obviously) socioeconomic status, but other differences as well. Possibly sex, age, gender, whatever. He feels he's a martyr for the good of humanity. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm supporting his actions, I would never do something like that. I think what he did was dispicable... yet, I must admit I sympathize him. I think if we all pause our bias which results from our disgust of his actions, we might all be able to sympathize with him... PERSONALLY, to me... he seems like a Kurt Cobain type of figure, except instead of killing himself (which I'm not saying is a completely unselfish act), he decided to take his vendetta out on the rest of the world. Obviously immoral, but strangely understandable.
[quote name='PhrostByte']blah blah[/QUOTE]
Do you honestly think society now is more violent than it has ever been at pretty much any stage in history?
At any given time, people around the world are knee deep in blood from wars, genocides, domestic struggles, and all the other insane atrocities that man will inflict upon his neighbors. Since the moment man emerged on this stupid little ball, we've done very little to move forward and progress in such a way that we're all that much different from our distant ancestors, whose remains might now be powering your car to pick up a burger.
No - we're the same neanderthalic mess we've always been. Since the first of mankind bludgeoned another with a giant stick, or sliced his throat with a sword, or crushed him beneath a catapult, or filled him full of lead, or tossed fire upon his roof, or incinerated him with the power of the splitting atoms, or trampled him beneath elephants, or ran him through on the backs of horses, or cut his head off while upon a chariot, or pinned him to the ground with arrows, or injected him with poisons, etc etc etc.
At no time in our history have we as a species been perfectly at peace with one another. There's always someone out there willing to kill another person for some reason, even if we can't discern what that reason is. It's more or less engrained in our essence - the strong survive and the weak shall die.
To suggest that something like video games - which have been around maybe 30 years if you want to be generous about it - has come along and disrupted some kind of sleeping demon within our psyches is insane. They have done little to affect our overall composition than any of the other things mankind has come into contact with.
Suggesting that we became more violent after videogames as a society is simply wrong. Simply wrong. I bet if you were to line up people from the dark ages - when someone might show up at your front door and stab you for no goddamned reason - that they'd consider us timid and weak. And I bet before that, if you took early man, who had to fight just to survive, they'd think the dark ages were full of pansies.
To sit there and say "videogames make us violent" is the same as saying "tigers born and raised in captivity regresses millions of years of natural instinct, and makes them live a life of fattening luxury, completely obliterating their intrinsic tendences." You don't magically erase years and years of evolution and survival in the harshest of environments because .0000001% of your kind ended up in the goddamned zoo. Just like how a small and insignificant portion of humanity at large plays video games, and even less play violent videogames, and even less play only violent videogames, to the point where the fraction is so small and meaningless - again, think .0000001% - that pretending it has altered our brains with any measure of significant impact is - again - insane.
In other words it's bullshit. Please don't sit there and tell me that having the ability to kill a group of pixels or polygons somehow ravages my inner ability to stay composed and rational in the face of annoyance and frustration in real life, because it simply doesn't. Chances are just as good that a kid growing up and playing nothing but football is "just as violent" as myself, if not more so. But the whole comparison breaks down because then I'd have to tout football as a catalyst to violence, and no one in their goddamn mind is going to say that in the United States and not expect a few beer bottles to be slung at their heads.
I mean c'mon. People used to gather in the Colisseum and watch men fight to the death for enjoyment, and you think Counterstrike molds us into fiercer fighting machines?
That's some bad granola.
Do you honestly think society now is more violent than it has ever been at pretty much any stage in history?
At any given time, people around the world are knee deep in blood from wars, genocides, domestic struggles, and all the other insane atrocities that man will inflict upon his neighbors. Since the moment man emerged on this stupid little ball, we've done very little to move forward and progress in such a way that we're all that much different from our distant ancestors, whose remains might now be powering your car to pick up a burger.
No - we're the same neanderthalic mess we've always been. Since the first of mankind bludgeoned another with a giant stick, or sliced his throat with a sword, or crushed him beneath a catapult, or filled him full of lead, or tossed fire upon his roof, or incinerated him with the power of the splitting atoms, or trampled him beneath elephants, or ran him through on the backs of horses, or cut his head off while upon a chariot, or pinned him to the ground with arrows, or injected him with poisons, etc etc etc.
At no time in our history have we as a species been perfectly at peace with one another. There's always someone out there willing to kill another person for some reason, even if we can't discern what that reason is. It's more or less engrained in our essence - the strong survive and the weak shall die.
To suggest that something like video games - which have been around maybe 30 years if you want to be generous about it - has come along and disrupted some kind of sleeping demon within our psyches is insane. They have done little to affect our overall composition than any of the other things mankind has come into contact with.
Suggesting that we became more violent after videogames as a society is simply wrong. Simply wrong. I bet if you were to line up people from the dark ages - when someone might show up at your front door and stab you for no goddamned reason - that they'd consider us timid and weak. And I bet before that, if you took early man, who had to fight just to survive, they'd think the dark ages were full of pansies.
To sit there and say "videogames make us violent" is the same as saying "tigers born and raised in captivity regresses millions of years of natural instinct, and makes them live a life of fattening luxury, completely obliterating their intrinsic tendences." You don't magically erase years and years of evolution and survival in the harshest of environments because .0000001% of your kind ended up in the goddamned zoo. Just like how a small and insignificant portion of humanity at large plays video games, and even less play violent videogames, and even less play only violent videogames, to the point where the fraction is so small and meaningless - again, think .0000001% - that pretending it has altered our brains with any measure of significant impact is - again - insane.
In other words it's bullshit. Please don't sit there and tell me that having the ability to kill a group of pixels or polygons somehow ravages my inner ability to stay composed and rational in the face of annoyance and frustration in real life, because it simply doesn't. Chances are just as good that a kid growing up and playing nothing but football is "just as violent" as myself, if not more so. But the whole comparison breaks down because then I'd have to tout football as a catalyst to violence, and no one in their goddamn mind is going to say that in the United States and not expect a few beer bottles to be slung at their heads.
I mean c'mon. People used to gather in the Colisseum and watch men fight to the death for enjoyment, and you think Counterstrike molds us into fiercer fighting machines?
That's some bad granola.
PhrostByte
CAG Newbie
[quote name='Strell']A complete misunderstanding of what I was trying to convery.[/quote]
Listen buddy. I'm not trying to be confrontational, rude, or offensive about this... I simply think you failed to see my point. My point has nothing to do with causality of violent media ON societal violence overall. My point was about violent media correlation to PERSONAL AGGRESSION TOWARDS ONES PEERS. Here's the statement I tried to make in the post you replied to... The arrival of television in the homes of Americans lead to more aggressive confrontations between Americans on a day-to-day basis. We weren't less violent before, but we became more hostile. Again, not all of us, I'm not even attempting to imply causality in this situation. I think American media breeds a fearful, aggressive, and alienating environment for Americans. Now... I must sincerely apologize for my next claim because right now I'm not going to bother looking up the research on it (If you want me to, I'm sure I can find it though), I'd much rather complete this post so you can see that I'M NOT EVEN DISAGREEING WITH YOU. We're simply not on the same page. Here it goes.
A purely observational study was conducted in a town in Canada (I don't know how long ago. I don't know who it was conducted by.) Regardless, it was a rural town that didn't have access to cable television up until that time... What happened when they got their cable boxes? Rates of violence went up, of various types. Verbal aggression, physical aggression, sexual aggression. Not only that... prevelance of eating disorders went up too. I don't remember if there were control conditions... but it's not hard to imagine that it was probably wouldn't be too difficult to find a naturally occuring control group (a similar town with similar crime levels that didn't get cable television yet).
Please don't take what I'm saying wrong... I'm not implying TV makes us violent, what I am trying to imply is that exposure to violence potentially breeds an environment of hostility. This is not only with TV, since in the post before mine you mentioned video games. I don't think video games themselves are THE PROBLEM. Video games came after violent television and movies, obviously. The violence in video games isn't an aspect of them due to the nature of video games themselves, instead, it's a reflection of what we in society view as "enjoyable entertainment". It's not the fault of video games themselves, it's the fault of our society's conceptions of what is right and wrong. Exposure to repeated scheduled stimilu not only has the capacibility to potentiate and desensitize to that stimuli, it also alters our perception of how human interaction should be....
I'm saying we learn from TV... even if it's not conciously.
Again, no disrespect meant.
Listen buddy. I'm not trying to be confrontational, rude, or offensive about this... I simply think you failed to see my point. My point has nothing to do with causality of violent media ON societal violence overall. My point was about violent media correlation to PERSONAL AGGRESSION TOWARDS ONES PEERS. Here's the statement I tried to make in the post you replied to... The arrival of television in the homes of Americans lead to more aggressive confrontations between Americans on a day-to-day basis. We weren't less violent before, but we became more hostile. Again, not all of us, I'm not even attempting to imply causality in this situation. I think American media breeds a fearful, aggressive, and alienating environment for Americans. Now... I must sincerely apologize for my next claim because right now I'm not going to bother looking up the research on it (If you want me to, I'm sure I can find it though), I'd much rather complete this post so you can see that I'M NOT EVEN DISAGREEING WITH YOU. We're simply not on the same page. Here it goes.
A purely observational study was conducted in a town in Canada (I don't know how long ago. I don't know who it was conducted by.) Regardless, it was a rural town that didn't have access to cable television up until that time... What happened when they got their cable boxes? Rates of violence went up, of various types. Verbal aggression, physical aggression, sexual aggression. Not only that... prevelance of eating disorders went up too. I don't remember if there were control conditions... but it's not hard to imagine that it was probably wouldn't be too difficult to find a naturally occuring control group (a similar town with similar crime levels that didn't get cable television yet).
Please don't take what I'm saying wrong... I'm not implying TV makes us violent, what I am trying to imply is that exposure to violence potentially breeds an environment of hostility. This is not only with TV, since in the post before mine you mentioned video games. I don't think video games themselves are THE PROBLEM. Video games came after violent television and movies, obviously. The violence in video games isn't an aspect of them due to the nature of video games themselves, instead, it's a reflection of what we in society view as "enjoyable entertainment". It's not the fault of video games themselves, it's the fault of our society's conceptions of what is right and wrong. Exposure to repeated scheduled stimilu not only has the capacibility to potentiate and desensitize to that stimuli, it also alters our perception of how human interaction should be....
I'm saying we learn from TV... even if it's not conciously.
Again, no disrespect meant.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
The problem you're making is that you're conflating aggression and violence, PhrostByte. Now, violence typically occurs with some level of measurable aggression (else it's an "accident," I suppose), but aggression can thrive long and hard without becoming violence. When you build the bridge from "increased aggression" to "increased violence," you're building it without a shred of evidence.
Check out the Psych prof who was on this week's podcast. Check out his home page, and see his latest research. It shows that playing violent video games leads to higher levels of aggression.
Well...so what, then? What can we draw from that about violence?
Nothing. What's the link between aggression and violence? That's the question you're implying has an answer when it doesn't.
Check out the Psych prof who was on this week's podcast. Check out his home page, and see his latest research. It shows that playing violent video games leads to higher levels of aggression.
Well...so what, then? What can we draw from that about violence?
Nothing. What's the link between aggression and violence? That's the question you're implying has an answer when it doesn't.
Also aggression associated with playing video games is more immediate and short-lived. Keep in mind that this shooter (as well as other school shooter) have most often methodically plan their attacks months to years in advance and execute their plan in a very deliberate and controlled fashion. If video games or any other violent media were a key trigger, you would expect a more direct time causality between playing a violent game/watching a violent movie and a more spontaneous, disorganized expression of violence. People instead are mistaking the facts that 1) the vast majority of school age children and college age people (especially men) play video games/watch movies so statistically any shooter in that demographic will have been exposed to it and 2) naturally someone with underlying violent tendencies will be attracted to violent media so you're mistaking effect for the cause.
I think the reason why there is seemingly more violence is more due to increased media exposure and hyperawareness. In reality, the incidence of school violence is actually on the decline. However, as the typical school shooter is someone who feels powerless with extremely low sense of self-worth, this mass media coverage gives them their 15 minutes of fame and allows them, in a warped way, to "be somebody"; the ultimate way to gain power when they were powerless before. Thus the extreme tiny minority of violent kids with suicidal and homocidal tendencies are more likely to go this route (hence the short-term increase of copycat threats in other schools).
I think the reason why there is seemingly more violence is more due to increased media exposure and hyperawareness. In reality, the incidence of school violence is actually on the decline. However, as the typical school shooter is someone who feels powerless with extremely low sense of self-worth, this mass media coverage gives them their 15 minutes of fame and allows them, in a warped way, to "be somebody"; the ultimate way to gain power when they were powerless before. Thus the extreme tiny minority of violent kids with suicidal and homocidal tendencies are more likely to go this route (hence the short-term increase of copycat threats in other schools).
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
To be fair, dopa, school shootings are anomalous enough to not even register on the "trend" scale to begin with.
And the mid-90's through today has shown, with few and isolated exceptions, marked decreases in the per capita crime rate. It's hard to reconcile being a "more violent society," but one in which the % likelihood of victimization keeps declining.
And the mid-90's through today has shown, with few and isolated exceptions, marked decreases in the per capita crime rate. It's hard to reconcile being a "more violent society," but one in which the % likelihood of victimization keeps declining.
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']To be fair, dopa, school shootings are anomalous enough to not even register on the "trend" scale to begin with.
[/QUOTE]
You try telling that to the Brits. They think there's a shootout on every corner and we send our kids to school with bulletproof vests.
[/QUOTE]
You try telling that to the Brits. They think there's a shootout on every corner and we send our kids to school with bulletproof vests.
PhrostByte
CAG Newbie
[quote name='mykevermin']The problem you're making is that you're conflating aggression and violence, PhrostByte. Now, violence typically occurs with some level of measurable aggression (else it's an "accident," I suppose), but aggression can thrive long and hard without becoming violence. When you build the bridge from "increased aggression" to "increased violence," you're building it without a shred of evidence.
Check out the Psych prof who was on this week's podcast. Check out his home page, and see his latest research. It shows that playing violent video games leads to higher levels of aggression.
Well...so what, then? What can we draw from that about violence?
Nothing. What's the link between aggression and violence? That's the question you're implying has an answer when it doesn't.[/quote]
You're absolutely right. Violence and aggression are two different things. However, I'd argue that both are measurable. Of course it's a lot more difficult to operationally define aggresion. There are multiple types. There's verbal, social, physical, even territorial. Violence on the hand, can be measure with things like "# of pushes", "# of disputes over toy control", "# of actual violent attacks such as punching and kicking", etc. I recall the Albert Bandura study with the Bobo dolls.
The Bobo doll experiment was conducted by Albert Bandura in 1961 and studied patterns of behaviour associated with aggression. Additional studies of this type were conducted by Bandura in 1963 and 1965. A Bobo doll is an inflatable toy that is approximately the same size as a prepubescent child.
This study claims to measure "aggression", but what it's realy looking at is physical violence towards the dolls.
I have another study to tell you guys about.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A second study (Liebert & Baron, 1972) confirmed Bandura's findings. This study investigated children's willingness to hurt other children after viewing aggressive TV programs. Two groups of children watched a different TV program, one of which had aggressive content and one of which was neutral. Those who saw the aggressive program (The Untouchables) were found to be more willing to hurt another child after viewing the program than those who watched the neutral program (a track race). Several other studies found that the same held true for viewing violent cartoons, and additionally that children were less likely to share their toys after viewing violent cartoons. One of the most convincing studies compared the incidence of aggressive behavior among children both before and two years after TV was introduced into the Canadian community where they resided (Joy, Kimball, Zabrack ,1986; Williams, 1986). There was a significant increase in both physical and verbal aggression after two years of viewing TV. What's important about this study is that it was easier to isolate the variable being tested, which was the effect of TV, since television had never previously been available to these children.[/FONT]
I'm sorry guys... but you all need to stop defending your unfounded biases. DON'T GET ME WRONG. I GET IT! I like games too... But If I ever become a professional mental hygenic clinician, I would make sure those emotionally unstable kids stayed away from Half-Life 2. The research has been done, violent media not only re-enforces the acceptability of aggressive behavior, but violent behavior as well... That's just the way it is. If your mind is fragile, it might be too much for you.
Check out the Psych prof who was on this week's podcast. Check out his home page, and see his latest research. It shows that playing violent video games leads to higher levels of aggression.
Well...so what, then? What can we draw from that about violence?
Nothing. What's the link between aggression and violence? That's the question you're implying has an answer when it doesn't.[/quote]
You're absolutely right. Violence and aggression are two different things. However, I'd argue that both are measurable. Of course it's a lot more difficult to operationally define aggresion. There are multiple types. There's verbal, social, physical, even territorial. Violence on the hand, can be measure with things like "# of pushes", "# of disputes over toy control", "# of actual violent attacks such as punching and kicking", etc. I recall the Albert Bandura study with the Bobo dolls.
The Bobo doll experiment was conducted by Albert Bandura in 1961 and studied patterns of behaviour associated with aggression. Additional studies of this type were conducted by Bandura in 1963 and 1965. A Bobo doll is an inflatable toy that is approximately the same size as a prepubescent child.
This study claims to measure "aggression", but what it's realy looking at is physical violence towards the dolls.
I have another study to tell you guys about.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A second study (Liebert & Baron, 1972) confirmed Bandura's findings. This study investigated children's willingness to hurt other children after viewing aggressive TV programs. Two groups of children watched a different TV program, one of which had aggressive content and one of which was neutral. Those who saw the aggressive program (The Untouchables) were found to be more willing to hurt another child after viewing the program than those who watched the neutral program (a track race). Several other studies found that the same held true for viewing violent cartoons, and additionally that children were less likely to share their toys after viewing violent cartoons. One of the most convincing studies compared the incidence of aggressive behavior among children both before and two years after TV was introduced into the Canadian community where they resided (Joy, Kimball, Zabrack ,1986; Williams, 1986). There was a significant increase in both physical and verbal aggression after two years of viewing TV. What's important about this study is that it was easier to isolate the variable being tested, which was the effect of TV, since television had never previously been available to these children.[/FONT]
I'm sorry guys... but you all need to stop defending your unfounded biases. DON'T GET ME WRONG. I GET IT! I like games too... But If I ever become a professional mental hygenic clinician, I would make sure those emotionally unstable kids stayed away from Half-Life 2. The research has been done, violent media not only re-enforces the acceptability of aggressive behavior, but violent behavior as well... That's just the way it is. If your mind is fragile, it might be too much for you.
PhrostByte
CAG Newbie
[quote name='dopa345']I think the reason why there is seemingly more violence is more due to increased media exposure and hyperawareness. In reality, the incidence of school violence is actually on the decline. However, as the typical school shooter is someone who feels powerless with extremely low sense of self-worth, this mass media coverage gives them their 15 minutes of fame and allows them, in a warped way, to "be somebody"; the ultimate way to gain power when they were powerless before. Thus the extreme tiny minority of violent kids with suicidal and homocidal tendencies are more likely to go this route (hence the short-term increase of copycat threats in other schools).[/quote]
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. This country has an almost erotic fascination with violence, and it's reflected in our viewing, listening, gaming, and purchasing habits. You can't just pinpoint the source of the problem because it's an institutional problem. It involves all of us. It involves our lifestyles, and the way we perceive life as it "Should be".
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. This country has an almost erotic fascination with violence, and it's reflected in our viewing, listening, gaming, and purchasing habits. You can't just pinpoint the source of the problem because it's an institutional problem. It involves all of us. It involves our lifestyles, and the way we perceive life as it "Should be".
PhrostByte
CAG Newbie
[quote name='mykevermin']To be fair, dopa, school shootings are anomalous enough to not even register on the "trend" scale to begin with.
And the mid-90's through today has shown, with few and isolated exceptions, marked decreases in the per capita crime rate. It's hard to reconcile being a "more violent society," but one in which the % likelihood of victimization keeps declining.[/quote]
Yes, violent crime has decreased over the years. Why? I don't know. But it's still part of our society and our media... and media is mind control. We are what the news says we are... unless you want to ignore media and be your own person... there's still some people who do that... I get most of my news from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report
And the mid-90's through today has shown, with few and isolated exceptions, marked decreases in the per capita crime rate. It's hard to reconcile being a "more violent society," but one in which the % likelihood of victimization keeps declining.[/quote]
Yes, violent crime has decreased over the years. Why? I don't know. But it's still part of our society and our media... and media is mind control. We are what the news says we are... unless you want to ignore media and be your own person... there's still some people who do that... I get most of my news from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='PhrostByte']
I'm sorry guys... but you all need to stop defending your unfounded bias. The research has been done, violence media not only re-enforces the acceptability of aggressive behavior, but violent behavior as well... That's just the way it is. If your mind is fragile, it might be too much for you.[/QUOTE]
1972 and 1986
In terms of trying to gauge someone's reaction to violence, those studies are seriously out of date when it comes to movies, TV and games. What was around in '72 in terms of violent games? TV was uber-tame, and you only had the occasional horror movie, and it was tame at that.
'86, what you had Punch Out and Metroid? Movies hadn't gotten all that worse, and TV was still much more tame than it is today.
Just last night, I was watching Underworld (great movie, have both on DVD) on TNT. They showed the head splitting scene. I thought to myself, 'Wow, I thought for sure they'd cut that.' You didn't have anything like that on TV ten years ago, much less twenty. There's a brutally violent horror movie coming out every month it seems like. Violence in games is at an all-time high, and more parents are prone to let their children play.
I don't doubt the validity of the studies at the time of their publication, but we're well past anything like that. Introducing someone to violence will beget violence at first, but what about continued exposure?
I'm sorry guys... but you all need to stop defending your unfounded bias. The research has been done, violence media not only re-enforces the acceptability of aggressive behavior, but violent behavior as well... That's just the way it is. If your mind is fragile, it might be too much for you.[/QUOTE]
1972 and 1986
In terms of trying to gauge someone's reaction to violence, those studies are seriously out of date when it comes to movies, TV and games. What was around in '72 in terms of violent games? TV was uber-tame, and you only had the occasional horror movie, and it was tame at that.
'86, what you had Punch Out and Metroid? Movies hadn't gotten all that worse, and TV was still much more tame than it is today.
Just last night, I was watching Underworld (great movie, have both on DVD) on TNT. They showed the head splitting scene. I thought to myself, 'Wow, I thought for sure they'd cut that.' You didn't have anything like that on TV ten years ago, much less twenty. There's a brutally violent horror movie coming out every month it seems like. Violence in games is at an all-time high, and more parents are prone to let their children play.
I don't doubt the validity of the studies at the time of their publication, but we're well past anything like that. Introducing someone to violence will beget violence at first, but what about continued exposure?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='CocheseUGA']1972 and 1986[/QUOTE]
The age of the study doesn't bother me, but the perhaps-unconsciously applied notion on PhrostByte's behalf that the heightened aggression that occurs from viewing TV is a constant is what does.
If you look at the media-effects research in Psych, you'll see that the effects are short lived. Even Craig Anderson, who does the same kind of research on games that priors did on TV, finds that aggression is heightened by playing violent video games, but more or less disappears after 15 minutes (any aggression measures used in the study return to identical b/w the violent gaming group and the control group).
So, when you have someone like Cho, who was purchasing guns 5 weeks in advance and made a audio-visual manifesto, you have someone who isn't suffering from short-lived aggression brought on by video games.
Moreover, some criminological research argues that aggression is inversely related to crime. Their hypothesis is that some folks are so difficult to satisfy in terms of excitement/adrenaline/heightened sensuality (not the Cinemax kind), that they turn to deviance and crime to get the same kind of sensual experience that other folks get from rather mundane affairs (going 15-20 over the speed limit, I suppose). They use biosocial markers (skin conductivity, or, how much the hands/fingers sweat, which is a suitable proxy measure for excitement - think clammy hands and when they occur) to see what those with prior offenses are like at normal levels and what they are like when engaging in destructive behavior. There's limited support for the hypothesis, but it just goes to show you how weak any assumed link b/w aggression and violence there is.
The age of the study doesn't bother me, but the perhaps-unconsciously applied notion on PhrostByte's behalf that the heightened aggression that occurs from viewing TV is a constant is what does.
If you look at the media-effects research in Psych, you'll see that the effects are short lived. Even Craig Anderson, who does the same kind of research on games that priors did on TV, finds that aggression is heightened by playing violent video games, but more or less disappears after 15 minutes (any aggression measures used in the study return to identical b/w the violent gaming group and the control group).
So, when you have someone like Cho, who was purchasing guns 5 weeks in advance and made a audio-visual manifesto, you have someone who isn't suffering from short-lived aggression brought on by video games.
Moreover, some criminological research argues that aggression is inversely related to crime. Their hypothesis is that some folks are so difficult to satisfy in terms of excitement/adrenaline/heightened sensuality (not the Cinemax kind), that they turn to deviance and crime to get the same kind of sensual experience that other folks get from rather mundane affairs (going 15-20 over the speed limit, I suppose). They use biosocial markers (skin conductivity, or, how much the hands/fingers sweat, which is a suitable proxy measure for excitement - think clammy hands and when they occur) to see what those with prior offenses are like at normal levels and what they are like when engaging in destructive behavior. There's limited support for the hypothesis, but it just goes to show you how weak any assumed link b/w aggression and violence there is.
[quote name='PhrostByte']
I'm sorry guys... but you all need to stop defending your unfounded biases. DON'T GET ME WRONG. I GET IT! I like games too... But If I ever become a professional mental hygenic clinician, I would make sure those emotionally unstable kids stayed away from Half-Life 2. The research has been done, violent media not only re-enforces the acceptability of aggressive behavior, but violent behavior as well... That's just the way it is. If your mind is fragile, it might be too much for you.[/QUOTE]
If you look at more recent reviews of the literature i.e within this past decade (and I admit, I may be in an advantage in this since I have online access to most medical journals) there is no conclusive evidence the violence in the media leads to increased pathologic antisocial behavior. There is weak evidence that playing violent video games leads to immediate short-term increase in aggression but there is nothing to support a long-term progression to violence. Rather than looking at parenting sites which are clearly biased, look through pubmed for more objective information. I would suggest looking for review articles in the Journal of Adolescent Health, Pediatrics, Lancet etc.
I'm sorry guys... but you all need to stop defending your unfounded biases. DON'T GET ME WRONG. I GET IT! I like games too... But If I ever become a professional mental hygenic clinician, I would make sure those emotionally unstable kids stayed away from Half-Life 2. The research has been done, violent media not only re-enforces the acceptability of aggressive behavior, but violent behavior as well... That's just the way it is. If your mind is fragile, it might be too much for you.[/QUOTE]
If you look at more recent reviews of the literature i.e within this past decade (and I admit, I may be in an advantage in this since I have online access to most medical journals) there is no conclusive evidence the violence in the media leads to increased pathologic antisocial behavior. There is weak evidence that playing violent video games leads to immediate short-term increase in aggression but there is nothing to support a long-term progression to violence. Rather than looking at parenting sites which are clearly biased, look through pubmed for more objective information. I would suggest looking for review articles in the Journal of Adolescent Health, Pediatrics, Lancet etc.
[quote name='PhrostByte']THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. This country has an almost erotic fascination with violence, and it's reflected in our viewing, listening, gaming, and purchasing habits. You can't just pinpoint the source of the problem because it's an institutional problem. It involves all of us. It involves our lifestyles, and the way we perceive life as it "Should be".[/QUOTE]
My point was more focused on the news media coverage of these events (I should have specified that). I'm not saying its not appropriate since something like this is important news that deserves mass exposure. I'm just stating that rather than interpreting this as an increase int the prevalence of violence, I would argue that it may encourage those already prone to violence to go out in a warped "blaze of glory".
My point was more focused on the news media coverage of these events (I should have specified that). I'm not saying its not appropriate since something like this is important news that deserves mass exposure. I'm just stating that rather than interpreting this as an increase int the prevalence of violence, I would argue that it may encourage those already prone to violence to go out in a warped "blaze of glory".
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Strell']I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the same.
I'm reallying tired of the older generation of Americans being so shocked when these things happen. Maybe it's my younger age and growing up in the wake of Columbine and the like, but at this point, while I am still thrown back when something like this happens, I sure as hell don't react like seemingly anyone over the age of 40.
To them, school is still in that idyllic Wonder Years/Happy Days sort ofing fantasy, where the cool guy wears a leather jacket and drives a motorcycle, the nerdy kids stick to themselves, and every other ing retarded cliched archetype of these so-called developmental years.
I guess it's just my own anger lashing out at this sort of thing - being that I didn't exactly have a good time in school after 5th grade, when all this sort of bullshit begins - but I can'ting stand it that no one seems to give a shit about bullying.
Is it ever going to stop? No, but don'ting tell me it's not capable of pushing people over the edge. It's like everyone wants to pretend there's nothing wrong with their All-American star quarterback, even though he's being a total douche bucket to tons of kids ALL THE ING TIME.
Also goes to show that Americans are still reallying petty and on their high horse on how great of a nation we are. We are a great nation, but we are full of ing assholes (myself included). I have to agree with RvB here - if I'm ever teaching a class of some kind (which I might do in my future, given my English degree), and I hear the slightest thing along those lines, the er is out of my class immediately.
My college student-run-paper interviewed some Asian students once in one of their columns, and they too talked about hearing "chinaman" jokes all the time. Makes meing sick.
I don't even like it when I'm dealing with clients at work, and when they find out I'm down in Texas, they try to cozy up with a lot of slurs against Mexicans. Just so damn infuriating.[/quote]
I think you've got a good point.
I haven't heard too much about the rich vs poor aspect of this either - I know that rich kids can often use wealth as a way of creating cliques. I know some people here went to schools in poor areas where it no doubt was rough, but at the same time it's no fun being poor at a rich kids school.
I'm really
ing tired of the older generation of Americans being so shocked when these things happen. Maybe it's my younger age and growing up in the wake of Columbine and the like, but at this point, while I am still thrown back when something like this happens, I sure as hell don't react like seemingly anyone over the age of 40.To them, school is still in that idyllic Wonder Years/Happy Days sort of
ing fantasy, where the cool guy wears a leather jacket and drives a motorcycle, the nerdy kids stick to themselves, and every other ing retarded cliched archetype of these so-called developmental years. I guess it's just my own anger lashing out at this sort of thing - being that I didn't exactly have a good time in school after 5th grade, when all this sort of bullshit begins - but I can't
ing stand it that no one seems to give a shit about bullying.Is it ever going to stop? No, but don't
ing tell me it's not capable of pushing people over the edge. It's like everyone wants to pretend there's nothing wrong with their All-American star quarterback, even though he's being a total douche bucket to tons of kids ALL THE ING TIME.Also goes to show that Americans are still really
ing petty and on their high horse on how great of a nation we are. We are a great nation, but we are full of ing assholes (myself included). I have to agree with RvB here - if I'm ever teaching a class of some kind (which I might do in my future, given my English degree), and I hear the slightest thing along those lines, the er is out of my class immediately.My college student-run-paper interviewed some Asian students once in one of their columns, and they too talked about hearing "chinaman" jokes all the time. Makes me
ing sick.I don't even like it when I'm dealing with clients at work, and when they find out I'm down in Texas, they try to cozy up with a lot of slurs against Mexicans. Just so damn infuriating.[/quote]
I think you've got a good point.
I haven't heard too much about the rich vs poor aspect of this either - I know that rich kids can often use wealth as a way of creating cliques. I know some people here went to schools in poor areas where it no doubt was rough, but at the same time it's no fun being poor at a rich kids school.
David85
Banned
[quote name='PhrostByte']However, when tards like Jack Thompson say things like "he trained on Doom, he trained on Counter-Strike", he does have a point. This country's media is engrained with violence, both overt and more subtle forms. We're bombared with violence on TV, movies, music, and yes... video games. It wasn't always this way... The fact of the matter is... when TV and its portrayals of fantasy (sex, violence, etc.) came around, America became more violent. [/QUOTE]
I think you couldn't be more wrong.
The only issue I see with TV is the fact they show the shit now 24 hours a day on the 10 "news" stations we have. They report on this more and more and now the crazyos se ethat they can become something in death that they weren't in life. America isn't more violent or less violent, it's the fact the .00001% of the crazy ers now have an outlet to go on shooting rampages.
There were no video games found in his hole Asshole "lawyer" said there would be 3 hours after the fact. There wasn't. Asshole said that 85% of young males play games, then why do only aren't there 10 million plus people going around shooting people? There is no proof video games, music or moviess up a dumb anymore than he already is. There seems to be some proof now with copycats that because the news reports every little detail you will become world famous for killing people. I blame the news people for giving these asshole ers an easy and famous way out. The jackass at VT knew he would be famous, he sent the tape to NBC News! if we are gonig to blame anyone besides the asshole and his family (in this case) then it should be the news outlets.
tards like Jack Thompson say things like "he trained on Doom, he trained on Counter-Strike", he does have a point. This country's media is engrained with violence, both overt and more subtle forms. We're bombared with violence on TV, movies, music, and yes... video games. It wasn't always this way... The fact of the matter is... when TV and its portrayals of fantasy (sex, violence, etc.) came around, America became more violent. [/QUOTE]I think you couldn't be more wrong.
The only issue I see with TV is the fact they show the shit now 24 hours a day on the 10 "news" stations we have. They report on this more and more and now the crazy
os se ethat they can become something in death that they weren't in life. America isn't more violent or less violent, it's the fact the .00001% of the crazy ers now have an outlet to go on shooting rampages.There were no video games found in his hole Asshole "lawyer" said there would be 3 hours after the fact. There wasn't. Asshole said that 85% of young males play games, then why do only aren't there 10 million plus people going around shooting people? There is no proof video games, music or movies
s up a dumb anymore than he already is. There seems to be some proof now with copycats that because the news reports every little detail you will become world famous for killing people. I blame the news people for giving these asshole ers an easy and famous way out. The jackass at VT knew he would be famous, he sent the tape to NBC News! if we are gonig to blame anyone besides the asshole and his family (in this case) then it should be the news outlets.
[quote name='PhrostByte']I haven't read either of those... but my Behaviorism professor wrote his own book called "Learning". [/QUOTE]
I strongly suggest reading Beyond Freedom and Dignity. It is without a doubt the best book I've ever read in the field of psychology.
[quote name='PhrostByte']... but it's a scary thing isn't it? If Cho had no choice in the matter... and he was just reacting to a 24 year chain of stimuli? Who's responsible? Him? Society? God? (If you're a theist?) Maybe nature if you're not? I used to fry my brain debating between determinism and free will... I'm almost finished my undergrad and I still can't decide... maybe there's no need to.[/QUOTE]
Thats what turns people off a lot of times when it comes to behaviorism. Yes, we are all victims of our environment and serendipity. You, nor I, are any better then a homeless man on the streets. This is a hard pill for most people to swallow, and I fully expect to have disagreements with what I just said.
I strongly suggest reading Beyond Freedom and Dignity. It is without a doubt the best book I've ever read in the field of psychology.
[quote name='PhrostByte']... but it's a scary thing isn't it? If Cho had no choice in the matter... and he was just reacting to a 24 year chain of stimuli? Who's responsible? Him? Society? God? (If you're a theist?) Maybe nature if you're not? I used to fry my brain debating between determinism and free will... I'm almost finished my undergrad and I still can't decide... maybe there's no need to.[/QUOTE]
Thats what turns people off a lot of times when it comes to behaviorism. Yes, we are all victims of our environment and serendipity. You, nor I, are any better then a homeless man on the streets. This is a hard pill for most people to swallow, and I fully expect to have disagreements with what I just said.
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
I am surprised they showed the video as soon as they did. I understand that a great deal of people find it news worthy, but this situation is just so unprecendented.
When, I first learned of the video I went to MSNBC.com and saw it. I was going to post a direct link but the video just seems too disturbing so I simply said it was on their site. In retrospect, which is what everything about this situation falls under, I really didn't need to see that video and the families are understandably angry. It's really not that for from the Nick Berg situation where killers are given a forum to show their perceived power. This may have been something that the families should have been allowed to see first only if they chose too. Then some time needs to pass before the public at large has free access to the info. I think something similar occured with 9/11 and the recordings from the planes.
Anyway, I hope those who are able are wearing at least some VA Tech colors today. If any of you have ever looked at the college football or basketball threads in the off-topic forum you know I am a fan of the Hokie Nation. Please do what ever you can to show support to the families and the university. Something as simple as a wearing a ribbon, sending cards of support, whatever. I know on our campus they have a memorial card that anyone can sign.
When, I first learned of the video I went to MSNBC.com and saw it. I was going to post a direct link but the video just seems too disturbing so I simply said it was on their site. In retrospect, which is what everything about this situation falls under, I really didn't need to see that video and the families are understandably angry. It's really not that for from the Nick Berg situation where killers are given a forum to show their perceived power. This may have been something that the families should have been allowed to see first only if they chose too. Then some time needs to pass before the public at large has free access to the info. I think something similar occured with 9/11 and the recordings from the planes.
Anyway, I hope those who are able are wearing at least some VA Tech colors today. If any of you have ever looked at the college football or basketball threads in the off-topic forum you know I am a fan of the Hokie Nation. Please do what ever you can to show support to the families and the university. Something as simple as a wearing a ribbon, sending cards of support, whatever. I know on our campus they have a memorial card that anyone can sign.
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Anyway, I hope those who are able are wearing at least some VA Tech colors today. If any of you have ever looked at the college football or basketball threads in the off-topic forum you know I am a fan of the Hokie Nation. Please do what ever you can to show support to the families and the university. Something as simple as a wearing a ribbon, sending cards of support, whatever. I know on our campus they have a memorial card that anyone can sign.[/QUOTE]
I'm actually has a maroon shirt on now and didn't realize people were going to be wearing the school colors today.
I'm actually has a maroon shirt on now and didn't realize people were going to be wearing the school colors today.
[quote name='Strell']I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the same.
I'm reallying tired of the older generation of Americans being so shocked when these things happen. Maybe it's my younger age and growing up in the wake of Columbine and the like, but at this point, while I am still thrown back when something like this happens, I sure as hell don't react like seemingly anyone over the age of 40.
To them, school is still in that idyllic Wonder Years/Happy Days sort ofing fantasy, where the cool guy wears a leather jacket and drives a motorcycle, the nerdy kids stick to themselves, and every other ing retarded cliched archetype of these so-called developmental years.
I guess it's just my own anger lashing out at this sort of thing - being that I didn't exactly have a good time in school after 5th grade, when all this sort of bullshit begins - but I can'ting stand it that no one seems to give a shit about bullying.
Is it ever going to stop? No, but don'ting tell me it's not capable of pushing people over the edge. It's like everyone wants to pretend there's nothing wrong with their All-American star quarterback, even though he's being a total douche bucket to tons of kids ALL THE ING TIME.
Also goes to show that Americans are still reallying petty and on their high horse on how great of a nation we are. We are a great nation, but we are full of ing assholes (myself included). I have to agree with RvB here - if I'm ever teaching a class of some kind (which I might do in my future, given my English degree), and I hear the slightest thing along those lines, the er is out of my class immediately.
My college student-run-paper interviewed some Asian students once in one of their columns, and they too talked about hearing "chinaman" jokes all the time. Makes meing sick.
I don't even like it when I'm dealing with clients at work, and when they find out I'm down in Texas, they try to cozy up with a lot of slurs against Mexicans. Just so damn infuriating.[/quote]
I'm in full agreement.
I think what happens is after people leave school and get older, they forget that world. Even I can't always tune in to those old feelings, the peer pressure, the self-consciousness, the hurt/anger towards bullies, whatever we experienced. I didn't graduate high school that long ago either - 2001. But I think the more removed you are, the more the feelings fade away. College was leagues better than high school.
But when you're in it, and you're getting bullied or see others getting bullied, or not being in the cool group, and just trying to fit in and get through the day, it's incredibly powerful. And the ones that get singled out, whether being picked on or completely ignored, have it worst of all. These are the Cho's, the Columbine boys.
Just recalling back to around 1999. I was a sophmore and that was the year anyone who was gay starting coming out. Before that (even in the media), there weren't a lot of openly gay people. The first guy who came out was assaulted nearly EVERY day by the football players for most of the year. I am not exagerating, as he was a friend at the time. The school did nothing, some loophole with the harassment policy or something. More and more people starting coming out though. They were assaulted as well, but after a year it started to fizzle out and it happened less and less. But for that time those kids lives were miserable. Fortunately they had good support systems in place, and were able to get through it.
I'm really
ing tired of the older generation of Americans being so shocked when these things happen. Maybe it's my younger age and growing up in the wake of Columbine and the like, but at this point, while I am still thrown back when something like this happens, I sure as hell don't react like seemingly anyone over the age of 40.To them, school is still in that idyllic Wonder Years/Happy Days sort of
ing fantasy, where the cool guy wears a leather jacket and drives a motorcycle, the nerdy kids stick to themselves, and every other ing retarded cliched archetype of these so-called developmental years. I guess it's just my own anger lashing out at this sort of thing - being that I didn't exactly have a good time in school after 5th grade, when all this sort of bullshit begins - but I can't
ing stand it that no one seems to give a shit about bullying.Is it ever going to stop? No, but don't
ing tell me it's not capable of pushing people over the edge. It's like everyone wants to pretend there's nothing wrong with their All-American star quarterback, even though he's being a total douche bucket to tons of kids ALL THE ING TIME.Also goes to show that Americans are still really
ing petty and on their high horse on how great of a nation we are. We are a great nation, but we are full of ing assholes (myself included). I have to agree with RvB here - if I'm ever teaching a class of some kind (which I might do in my future, given my English degree), and I hear the slightest thing along those lines, the er is out of my class immediately.My college student-run-paper interviewed some Asian students once in one of their columns, and they too talked about hearing "chinaman" jokes all the time. Makes me
ing sick.I don't even like it when I'm dealing with clients at work, and when they find out I'm down in Texas, they try to cozy up with a lot of slurs against Mexicans. Just so damn infuriating.[/quote]
I'm in full agreement.
I think what happens is after people leave school and get older, they forget that world. Even I can't always tune in to those old feelings, the peer pressure, the self-consciousness, the hurt/anger towards bullies, whatever we experienced. I didn't graduate high school that long ago either - 2001. But I think the more removed you are, the more the feelings fade away. College was leagues better than high school.
But when you're in it, and you're getting bullied or see others getting bullied, or not being in the cool group, and just trying to fit in and get through the day, it's incredibly powerful. And the ones that get singled out, whether being picked on or completely ignored, have it worst of all. These are the Cho's, the Columbine boys.
Just recalling back to around 1999. I was a sophmore and that was the year anyone who was gay starting coming out. Before that (even in the media), there weren't a lot of openly gay people. The first guy who came out was assaulted nearly EVERY day by the football players for most of the year. I am not exagerating, as he was a friend at the time. The school did nothing, some loophole with the harassment policy or something. More and more people starting coming out though. They were assaulted as well, but after a year it started to fizzle out and it happened less and less. But for that time those kids lives were miserable. Fortunately they had good support systems in place, and were able to get through it.
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
[quote name='seanr1221']I'm actually has a maroon shirt on now and didn't realize people were going to be wearing the school colors today.[/quote]
It may just be something that was announce for the state of Virginia. I'm not sure.
Here's some uplifting stuff for a change.
It may just be something that was announce for the state of Virginia. I'm not sure.
Here's some uplifting stuff for a change.
http://www.yahoo.com/s/561358
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I am surprised they showed the video as soon as they did. I understand that a great deal of people find it news worthy, but this situation is just so unprecendented.
When, I first learned of the video I went to MSNBC.com and saw it. I was going to post a direct link but the video just seems too disturbing so I simply said it was on their site. In retrospect, which is what everything about this situation falls under, I really didn't need to see that video and the families are understandably angry. It's really not that for from the Nick Berg situation where killers are given a forum to show their perceived power. This may have been something that the families should have been allowed to see first only if they chose too. Then some time needs to pass before the public at large has free access to the info. I think something similar occured with 9/11 and the recordings from the planes.
Anyway, I hope those who are able are wearing at least some VA Tech colors today. If any of you have ever looked at the college football or basketball threads in the off-topic forum you know I am a fan of the Hokie Nation. Please do what ever you can to show support to the families and the university. Something as simple as a wearing a ribbon, sending cards of support, whatever. I know on our campus they have a memorial card that anyone can sign.[/QUOTE]
I'm torn on this, and was accused by some people of wanting "more gore" on the news. I just happen to think that the self-censorship of the media w/ regard to violent images (dead bodies in Iraq, wounded people at VT) gloss over the real world in which you and I live. At the point that you avoid elements of reality to appease the viewers, you're no longer *news*. You're entertainment.
I don't want more "gore," I want more reality. A blown up body is reality. 180 blown up bodies in Iraq is this morning's reality, yet it doesn't dent any of us much because (1) it's mundane at this point due to its repetitive nature, (2) it's hardly given coverage (see point 1), and (3) visuals aren't shown so easily-offended pissants won't be offended. Frankly, I'm offended that a bunch of motherers think it isn't newsworthy to show the world in which we live for what it is: violent and nasty.
Now, as for the Cho video being shown over and over, while I want to agree, the repetitive cycle of news has always been this way. If you watch 24/7 news for more than 30 minutes, you get the same news over and over, whether or not there is a catastrophe at the moment. I don't think the news is meant to be viewed in segments longer than 30 minutes.
I have a hard time with people who say "we don't want to see _____ on the news." It's absurd, and shows how much we demand to construct our reality. We expect the news to inform us, but when it tries to inform us about the real world that offends our sensibilities, we collectively balk at the attempt.
When, I first learned of the video I went to MSNBC.com and saw it. I was going to post a direct link but the video just seems too disturbing so I simply said it was on their site. In retrospect, which is what everything about this situation falls under, I really didn't need to see that video and the families are understandably angry. It's really not that for from the Nick Berg situation where killers are given a forum to show their perceived power. This may have been something that the families should have been allowed to see first only if they chose too. Then some time needs to pass before the public at large has free access to the info. I think something similar occured with 9/11 and the recordings from the planes.
Anyway, I hope those who are able are wearing at least some VA Tech colors today. If any of you have ever looked at the college football or basketball threads in the off-topic forum you know I am a fan of the Hokie Nation. Please do what ever you can to show support to the families and the university. Something as simple as a wearing a ribbon, sending cards of support, whatever. I know on our campus they have a memorial card that anyone can sign.[/QUOTE]
I'm torn on this, and was accused by some people of wanting "more gore" on the news. I just happen to think that the self-censorship of the media w/ regard to violent images (dead bodies in Iraq, wounded people at VT) gloss over the real world in which you and I live. At the point that you avoid elements of reality to appease the viewers, you're no longer *news*. You're entertainment.
I don't want more "gore," I want more reality. A blown up body is reality. 180 blown up bodies in Iraq is this morning's reality, yet it doesn't dent any of us much because (1) it's mundane at this point due to its repetitive nature, (2) it's hardly given coverage (see point 1), and (3) visuals aren't shown so easily-offended pissants won't be offended. Frankly, I'm offended that a bunch of mother
ers think it isn't newsworthy to show the world in which we live for what it is: violent and nasty.Now, as for the Cho video being shown over and over, while I want to agree, the repetitive cycle of news has always been this way. If you watch 24/7 news for more than 30 minutes, you get the same news over and over, whether or not there is a catastrophe at the moment. I don't think the news is meant to be viewed in segments longer than 30 minutes.
I have a hard time with people who say "we don't want to see _____ on the news." It's absurd, and shows how much we demand to construct our reality. We expect the news to inform us, but when it tries to inform us about the real world that offends our sensibilities, we collectively balk at the attempt.
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm torn on this, and was accused by some people of wanting "more gore" on the news. I just happen to think that the self-censorship of the media w/ regard to violent images (dead bodies in Iraq, wounded people at VT) gloss over the real world in which you and I live. At the point that you avoid elements of reality to appease the viewers, you're no longer *news*. You're entertainment.
I don't want more "gore," I want more reality. A blown up body is reality. 180 blown up bodies in Iraq is this morning's reality, yet it doesn't dent any of us much because (1) it's mundane at this point due to its repetitive nature, (2) it's hardly given coverage (see point 1), and (3) visuals aren't shown so easily-offended pissants won't be offended. Frankly, I'm offended that a bunch of motherers think it isn't newsworthy to show the world in which we live for what it is: violent and nasty.
Now, as for the Cho video being shown over and over, while I want to agree, the repetitive cycle of news has always been this way. If you watch 24/7 news for more than 30 minutes, you get the same news over and over, whether or not there is a catastrophe at the moment. I don't think the news is meant to be viewed in segments longer than 30 minutes.
I have a hard time with people who say "we don't want to see _____ on the news." It's absurd, and shows how much we demand to construct our reality. We expect the news to inform us, but when it tries to inform us about the real world that offends our sensibilities, we collectively balk at the attempt.[/quote]
Do you disagree with civility standards for television? Reality or not, I don't want to see dismembered bodies while watching the news during dinner, or while casually flipping through the stations.
Showing graphic imagery as you suggest walks the fine line between "news" and "shock value", and I dare say that it might even cross it. I can read about all of the death in Iraq and understand it, but I don't need to see it close up and in glorious high definition.
I don't want more "gore," I want more reality. A blown up body is reality. 180 blown up bodies in Iraq is this morning's reality, yet it doesn't dent any of us much because (1) it's mundane at this point due to its repetitive nature, (2) it's hardly given coverage (see point 1), and (3) visuals aren't shown so easily-offended pissants won't be offended. Frankly, I'm offended that a bunch of mother
ers think it isn't newsworthy to show the world in which we live for what it is: violent and nasty.Now, as for the Cho video being shown over and over, while I want to agree, the repetitive cycle of news has always been this way. If you watch 24/7 news for more than 30 minutes, you get the same news over and over, whether or not there is a catastrophe at the moment. I don't think the news is meant to be viewed in segments longer than 30 minutes.
I have a hard time with people who say "we don't want to see _____ on the news." It's absurd, and shows how much we demand to construct our reality. We expect the news to inform us, but when it tries to inform us about the real world that offends our sensibilities, we collectively balk at the attempt.[/quote]
Do you disagree with civility standards for television? Reality or not, I don't want to see dismembered bodies while watching the news during dinner, or while casually flipping through the stations.
Showing graphic imagery as you suggest walks the fine line between "news" and "shock value", and I dare say that it might even cross it. I can read about all of the death in Iraq and understand it, but I don't need to see it close up and in glorious high definition.
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
When the public (or government, or lawyers, or anyone else on the outside) dictates what should be allowed to be shown on the news, it ceases to be "the news".
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='evilmax17']Do you disagree with civility standards for television?[/QUOTE]
Yes, I do disagree. "civility standards" is another way of dodging the real world. I truly believe that there's a massive disconnect between reality and our perception of it. Part of it is because of what is hidden, and part of it is the consequence of that: the failure to grasp the scope of what 180 dead, 142 wounded means and looks like.
I don't care for the "dinner defense" either. The news is not supposed to be a side-dish meant to complement your meal, meant to appease. I believe that the purpose of the news is to inform, appease when necessary, and shock when necessary.
Lastly, as for "shock value" claims, there are ample accusations of that with the civility standards in place.
I don't mind if the news decides against showing gruesome images, I suppose (though I'd favor them all showing such images, so people easily offended can just stop lying to themselves about wanting to be informed and simply not watch the news at all). What I mind is the similarity and consistency of it. You don't have to watch *my* news program if it's too gruesome. However, I have no choice in the matter, as they're all deceptive and milquetoast.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']When the public (or government, or lawyers, or anyone else on the outside) dictates what should be allowed to be shown on the news, it ceases to be "the news".[/QUOTE]
Well, there is a media ban on images of soldiers' coffins that was ordered by the White House. As for gruesome images, I imagine the FCC has something to do with that, rather than a corporate "gentlemen's agreement."
Yes, I do disagree. "civility standards" is another way of dodging the real world. I truly believe that there's a massive disconnect between reality and our perception of it. Part of it is because of what is hidden, and part of it is the consequence of that: the failure to grasp the scope of what 180 dead, 142 wounded means and looks like.
I don't care for the "dinner defense" either. The news is not supposed to be a side-dish meant to complement your meal, meant to appease. I believe that the purpose of the news is to inform, appease when necessary, and shock when necessary.
Lastly, as for "shock value" claims, there are ample accusations of that with the civility standards in place.
I don't mind if the news decides against showing gruesome images, I suppose (though I'd favor them all showing such images, so people easily offended can just stop lying to themselves about wanting to be informed and simply not watch the news at all). What I mind is the similarity and consistency of it. You don't have to watch *my* news program if it's too gruesome. However, I have no choice in the matter, as they're all deceptive and milquetoast.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']When the public (or government, or lawyers, or anyone else on the outside) dictates what should be allowed to be shown on the news, it ceases to be "the news".[/QUOTE]
Well, there is a media ban on images of soldiers' coffins that was ordered by the White House. As for gruesome images, I imagine the FCC has something to do with that, rather than a corporate "gentlemen's agreement."
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, there is a media ban on images of soldiers' coffins that was ordered by the White House.[/QUOTE] Yes, but there shouldn't be. If we actually had to see that stuff, more people would care.
PhrostByte
CAG Newbie
[quote name='mykevermin']The age of the study doesn't bother me, but the perhaps-unconsciously applied notion on PhrostByte's behalf that the heightened aggression that occurs from viewing TV is a constant is what does.
If you look at the media-effects research in Psych, you'll see that the effects are short lived. Even Craig Anderson, who does the same kind of research on games that priors did on TV, finds that aggression is heightened by playing violent video games, but more or less disappears after 15 minutes (any aggression measures used in the study return to identical b/w the violent gaming group and the control group).
So, when you have someone like Cho, who was purchasing guns 5 weeks in advance and made a audio-visual manifesto, you have someone who isn't suffering from short-lived aggression brought on by video games.
Moreover, some criminological research argues that aggression is inversely related to crime. Their hypothesis is that some folks are so difficult to satisfy in terms of excitement/adrenaline/heightened sensuality (not the Cinemax kind), that they turn to deviance and crime to get the same kind of sensual experience that other folks get from rather mundane affairs (going 15-20 over the speed limit, I suppose). They use biosocial markers (skin conductivity, or, how much the hands/fingers sweat, which is a suitable proxy measure for excitement - think clammy hands and when they occur) to see what those with prior offenses are like at normal levels and what they are like when engaging in destructive behavior. There's limited support for the hypothesis, but it just goes to show you how weak any assumed link b/w aggression and violence there is.[/quote]
Yeah. Again, you're right and I'm not disagreeing. On top of your claim of effects being short term, some even predict cathartic effects from video games. My claim isn't, and has never been, that games make us want to act out the fantasies depicted in them. I'm saying we become desensitized to violence, for us it becomes just another part of life. And for some psycho deranged killer, that part of life that is considered normal to us (in the scope of entertainment) becomes more than just a part of life. It becomes life. It becomes who he is as a person.
If you look at the media-effects research in Psych, you'll see that the effects are short lived. Even Craig Anderson, who does the same kind of research on games that priors did on TV, finds that aggression is heightened by playing violent video games, but more or less disappears after 15 minutes (any aggression measures used in the study return to identical b/w the violent gaming group and the control group).
So, when you have someone like Cho, who was purchasing guns 5 weeks in advance and made a audio-visual manifesto, you have someone who isn't suffering from short-lived aggression brought on by video games.
Moreover, some criminological research argues that aggression is inversely related to crime. Their hypothesis is that some folks are so difficult to satisfy in terms of excitement/adrenaline/heightened sensuality (not the Cinemax kind), that they turn to deviance and crime to get the same kind of sensual experience that other folks get from rather mundane affairs (going 15-20 over the speed limit, I suppose). They use biosocial markers (skin conductivity, or, how much the hands/fingers sweat, which is a suitable proxy measure for excitement - think clammy hands and when they occur) to see what those with prior offenses are like at normal levels and what they are like when engaging in destructive behavior. There's limited support for the hypothesis, but it just goes to show you how weak any assumed link b/w aggression and violence there is.[/quote]
Yeah. Again, you're right and I'm not disagreeing. On top of your claim of effects being short term, some even predict cathartic effects from video games. My claim isn't, and has never been, that games make us want to act out the fantasies depicted in them. I'm saying we become desensitized to violence, for us it becomes just another part of life. And for some psycho deranged killer, that part of life that is considered normal to us (in the scope of entertainment) becomes more than just a part of life. It becomes life. It becomes who he is as a person.
PhrostByte
CAG Newbie
[quote name='dopa345']My point was more focused on the news media coverage of these events (I should have specified that). I'm not saying its not appropriate since something like this is important news that deserves mass exposure. I'm just stating that rather than interpreting this as an increase int the prevalence of violence, I would argue that it may encourage those already prone to violence to go out in a warped "blaze of glory".[/quote]
Agreed. He was pushed over the edge... simple as that. Reports of attempted copy-cat crimes have already shown up.
Agreed. He was pushed over the edge... simple as that. Reports of attempted copy-cat crimes have already shown up.
PhrostByte
CAG Newbie
[quote name='seanr1221']I strongly suggest reading Beyond Freedom and Dignity. It is without a doubt the best book I've ever read in the field of psychology.
Thats what turns people off a lot of times when it comes to behaviorism. Yes, we are all victims of our environment and serendipity. You, nor I, are any better then a homeless man on the streets. This is a hard pill for most people to swallow, and I fully expect to have disagreements with what I just said.[/quote]
Well.. the farther I delved into philosophy, the farther I had to back track. Now I'd say I'm probably on the nihlist side of the debate... Instead of saying "no we're free" or "no we're robots", I just give up and say we can never know.
Thats what turns people off a lot of times when it comes to behaviorism. Yes, we are all victims of our environment and serendipity. You, nor I, are any better then a homeless man on the streets. This is a hard pill for most people to swallow, and I fully expect to have disagreements with what I just said.[/quote]
Well.. the farther I delved into philosophy, the farther I had to back track. Now I'd say I'm probably on the nihlist side of the debate... Instead of saying "no we're free" or "no we're robots", I just give up and say we can never know.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='PhrostByte']Yeah. Again, you're right and I'm not disagreeing. On top of your claim of effects being short term, some even predict cathartic effects from video games. My claim isn't, and has never been, that games make us want to act out the fantasies depicted in them. I'm saying we become desensitized to violence, for us it becomes just another part of life. And for some psycho deranged killer, that part of life that is considered normal to us (in the scope of entertainment) becomes more than just a part of life. It becomes life. It becomes who he is as a person.[/QUOTE]
The catharsis hypothesis is interesting. Somewhere in my folders of journal articles (which beats even Shipwreck's game collection :lol, I have a study on crime rates on weekends when well-promoted and highly-anticipated violent movies come out. The hypothesis is that risk-seeking people (those who would commit crimes or acts of violence/deviance) find their sensations alleviated by these films instead of crime. IIRC (and I may not), the effects were statistically significant, but minor (so you'd see minor but appreciable decreases in the per capita crime rate on a weekend when "Saw IV" comes out, for example).
The catharsis hypothesis is interesting. Somewhere in my folders of journal articles (which beats even Shipwreck's game collection :lol
, I have a study on crime rates on weekends when well-promoted and highly-anticipated violent movies come out. The hypothesis is that risk-seeking people (those who would commit crimes or acts of violence/deviance) find their sensations alleviated by these films instead of crime. IIRC (and I may not), the effects were statistically significant, but minor (so you'd see minor but appreciable decreases in the per capita crime rate on a weekend when "Saw IV" comes out, for example).
Lobsterjohnson
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Yes, but there shouldn't be. If we actually had to see that stuff, more people would care.[/quote]
More people should be educated enough to know what happens in war.
More people should be educated enough to know what happens in war.
bread's done