"Active Shooter" video game lets you be school shooter

[OldLady]

Many of the most popular video games, such as “Call of Duty” and “Grand Theft Auto,” are violent; however, as video game technology is relatively new, there are fewer empirical studies of video game violence than other forms of media violence. Still, several meta-analytic reviews have reported negative effects of exposure to violence in video games.

A 2010 review by psychologist Craig A. Anderson and others concluded that “the evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior.” Anderson’s earlier research showed that playing violent video games can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in daily life. "One major conclusion from this and other research on violent entertainment media is that content matters," says Anderson.

What is the evidence he's using to "strongly suggest - " - ?

I actually kinda dont feel like critiquing this one study that says the area lacks study right now - - but that was a red flag, no?

Anyhoo - its getting hotter than a ....out there today!~

Just took the first two I ran into, and just like searching articles on gun control, there are studies and statistics bearing out both sides of the argument.
I had a really good cognitive psych professor once who always said in situations like this (I think we were talking about nature v nurture) the truth is somewhere in the middle. Same with media influence on violence, probably. Both sides have valid points.

Time to plant your tomatoes!

 

[G.T.]

Many of the most popular video games, such as “Call of Duty” and “Grand Theft Auto,” are violent; however, as video game technology is relatively new, there are fewer empirical studies of video game violence than other forms of media violence. Still, several meta-analytic reviews have reported negative effects of exposure to violence in video games.

A 2010 review by psychologist Craig A. Anderson and others concluded that “the evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior.” Anderson’s earlier research showed that playing violent video games can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in daily life. "One major conclusion from this and other research on violent entertainment media is that content matters," says Anderson.

What is the evidence he's using to "strongly suggest - " - ?

I actually kinda dont feel like critiquing this one study that says the area lacks study right now - - but that was a red flag, no?

Anyhoo - its getting hotter than a ....out there today!~

Just took the first two I ran into, and just like searching articles on gun control, there are studies and statistics bearing out both sides of the argument.
I had a really good cognitive psych professor once who always said in situations like this (I think we were talking about nature v nurture) the truth is somewhere in the middle. Same with media influence on violence, probably. Both sides have valid points.

Time to plant your tomatoes!

I understand - but I'm willing to fight for the level of unapologetic freedom that is free speech in light of the especial scenario where violent crime is on the decrease.

 

[Some Guy]

I don't necessarily think it's that people are holding onto them willfully. It could easily be explained away by not having the time/desire/ability to explore the farthest reaches of the internet which can provide you with a wealth of knowledge and exposure to stuff that you didn't know existed. Stepping outside your walls isn't easy, and for a lot of people, not desirable or even conducive. I didn't know about all those kinds of rap, like back-pack rap for example, cause i'm not really into rap and have no desire to explore the various forms of it, nor do i have the time to.

Most people are going off what's in the mainstream. What they're exposed to via radio and TV and most internet outlets as well. It takes a lot of time and effort to get into a topic to a certain depth, and someone will only do that if they're really interested in it. So for someone to say that rap promotes gang violence and violence against women, they're not wrong because that's what's been quite prevalent in the forms that actually have made it outside of their little loyal bubbles and into the (at least somewhat) mainstream. It doesn't make someone an authority on the topic but they're not wrong. "Ok, so rap has taken lots of forms, but we still have this version over here that's reaching millions of impressionable kids and could be having an adverse impact. Can we talk about that?"

We could talk about it, pull up a chair

And I understand all of that, and not having the time - - but that's where I reach the idea of intellectual laziness: I take issue when a non-researched human promotes un-found propaganda in a would-be serious discussion. Just bugs me, in a way. I hate inefficiency. It's part of my job, I guess.

I love being wrong when it comes from an honest place. That's how pragmatism works....and it happens a lot, where I'm wrong. I just don't seem to jump into many discussion on the internet that I'm not familiar with, because I think it's kinda silly that's all. I understand all perceptions involved, here.

I've found that it's easy to sway people who are capable of being swayed if you just put your own logic behind it and explain yourself as thoughtfully as you can while you also make as little assumptions as you can about where the other person is coming from. One problem is that people go into arguments/discussions assuming that the other has the same level of knowledge/exposure to a given subject, or worse yet, assuming that the other understands your point of view without being told what it is first. They'll take one position you seem to be saying and then extrapolate it out onto other things based on the pre-conceptions they have of you or the kind of things you happen to be saying. It's why i think labels are so dangerous, and why i think the modern left is so very dangerous and damaging to our culture with the affinity for grouping people together and then applying your own pre-conceptions of that group to that person. It's sickening.

I try to assume that people are coming from a pretty good place, and that there is a whole hell of a lot of information out there that no one person can contain it all. We're all going to have our areas of expertise combined with our intellect, our ability to reason and what experiences have shaped us. So if i'm passionate about rock and someone says rock sucks cause of x, y and z, i don't assume that they're a bad person. They don't like rock, but maybe it's cause of a few songs, or a few artists that are notorious earbugs like Nickelback (ugh). Have you heard this? Or that? What kind of music do you like? Oh really, then you might like this, this or this band cause they put this kind of flair into it that might be more up your alley than this, this or this. If the other person comes away going "oh, that's cool, might have to check that stuff out" then you both win.

There's varying degrees to everything. I've found that critical thinking is really a skill that's not easily developed. So if someone isn't getting something on a deeper more complex level that you understand, it's not necessarily cause they're stupid, it's just their brain doesn't work that way or it can't get around that certain topic. I've got no chance of changing someone's mind if i then insult their intelligence, and worse yet, i've spoiled myself for changing that person's mind in the future cause they know that i think they're stupid, even if i don't actually think that. Even if i can't get them to wrap their head around the concept i'm presenting or can't sway them, i'm at least leaving the door open on the next topic. I'm establishing credibility as someone who's opinion isn't arrived at because someone told me to.

I'm rambling, but yea. I'm a pragmatist with strong, strong convictions toward liberty, and exhausting all other options to address a problem before asking government to do it.

 

[OldLady]

Many of the most popular video games, such as “Call of Duty” and “Grand Theft Auto,” are violent; however, as video game technology is relatively new, there are fewer empirical studies of video game violence than other forms of media violence. Still, several meta-analytic reviews have reported negative effects of exposure to violence in video games.

A 2010 review by psychologist Craig A. Anderson and others concluded that “the evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior.” Anderson’s earlier research showed that playing violent video games can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in daily life. "One major conclusion from this and other research on violent entertainment media is that content matters," says Anderson.

What is the evidence he's using to "strongly suggest - " - ?

I actually kinda dont feel like critiquing this one study that says the area lacks study right now - - but that was a red flag, no?

Anyhoo - its getting hotter than a ....out there today!~

Just took the first two I ran into, and just like searching articles on gun control, there are studies and statistics bearing out both sides of the argument.
I had a really good cognitive psych professor once who always said in situations like this (I think we were talking about nature v nurture) the truth is somewhere in the middle. Same with media influence on violence, probably. Both sides have valid points.

Time to plant your tomatoes!

I understand - but I'm willing to fight for the level of unapologetic freedom that is free speech in light of the especial scenario where violent crime is on the decrease.

Explain how Active Shooter or Grand Theft Auto is "freedom of speech." Honestly, I don't get how it applies.

 

[G.T.]

I don't necessarily think it's that people are holding onto them willfully. It could easily be explained away by not having the time/desire/ability to explore the farthest reaches of the internet which can provide you with a wealth of knowledge and exposure to stuff that you didn't know existed. Stepping outside your walls isn't easy, and for a lot of people, not desirable or even conducive. I didn't know about all those kinds of rap, like back-pack rap for example, cause i'm not really into rap and have no desire to explore the various forms of it, nor do i have the time to.

Most people are going off what's in the mainstream. What they're exposed to via radio and TV and most internet outlets as well. It takes a lot of time and effort to get into a topic to a certain depth, and someone will only do that if they're really interested in it. So for someone to say that rap promotes gang violence and violence against women, they're not wrong because that's what's been quite prevalent in the forms that actually have made it outside of their little loyal bubbles and into the (at least somewhat) mainstream. It doesn't make someone an authority on the topic but they're not wrong. "Ok, so rap has taken lots of forms, but we still have this version over here that's reaching millions of impressionable kids and could be having an adverse impact. Can we talk about that?"

We could talk about it, pull up a chair

And I understand all of that, and not having the time - - but that's where I reach the idea of intellectual laziness: I take issue when a non-researched human promotes un-found propaganda in a would-be serious discussion. Just bugs me, in a way. I hate inefficiency. It's part of my job, I guess.

I love being wrong when it comes from an honest place. That's how pragmatism works....and it happens a lot, where I'm wrong. I just don't seem to jump into many discussion on the internet that I'm not familiar with, because I think it's kinda silly that's all. I understand all perceptions involved, here.

I've found that it's easy to sway people who are capable of being swayed if you just put your own logic behind it and explain yourself as thoughtfully as you can while you also make as little assumptions as you can about where the other person is coming from. One problem is that people go into arguments/discussions assuming that the other has the same level of knowledge/exposure to a given subject, or worse yet, assuming that the other understands your point of view without being told what it is first. They'll take one position you seem to be saying and then extrapolate it out onto other things based on the pre-conceptions they have of you or the kind of things you happen to be saying. It's why i think labels are so dangerous, and why i think the modern left is so very dangerous and damaging to our culture with the affinity for grouping people together and then applying your own pre-conceptions of that group to that person. It's sickening.

I try to assume that people are coming from a pretty good place, and that there is a whole hell of a lot of information out there that no one person can contain it all. We're all going to have our areas of expertise combined with our intellect, our ability to reason and what experiences have shaped us. So if i'm passionate about rock and someone says rock sucks cause of x, y and z, i don't assume that they're a bad person. They don't like rock, but maybe it's cause of a few songs, or a few artists that are notorious earbugs like Nickelback (ugh). Have you heard this? Or that? What kind of music do you like? Oh really, then you might like this, this or this band cause they put this kind of flair into it that might be more up your alley than this, this or this. If the other person comes away going "oh, that's cool, might have to check that stuff out" then you both win.

There's varying degrees to everything. I've found that critical thinking is really a skill that's not easily developed. So if someone isn't getting something on a deeper more complex level that you understand, it's not necessarily cause they're stupid, it's just their brain doesn't work that way or it can't get around that certain topic. I've got no chance of changing someone's mind if i then insult their intelligence, and worse yet, i've spoiled myself for changing that person's mind in the future cause they know that i think they're stupid, even if i don't actually think that. Even if i can't get them to wrap their head around the concept i'm presenting or can't sway them, i'm at least leaving the door open on the next topic. I'm establishing credibility as someone who's opinion isn't arrived at because someone told me to.

I'm rambling, but yea. I'm a pragmatist with strong, strong convictions toward liberty, and exhausting all other options to address a problem before asking government to do it.

I agree with that, good post. Really good post.

I try on the message-board format to do just that, but I have my limits as a hard-headed Italian and for the folks who've crossed the line, I reciprocate and it's never going to be the same for them again. The downside to my procedure there, is that I also have other folks witnessing these events (lol!!!), so - - - there's that, too.....but at least that I know that I'm personally consistent in never attacking without being attacked. It's the only rule I have here, for myself. Sometimes, though, the lines are blurred when someone attacks a certain group that I'm a part of - - thus only insulting me unwittingly. I still might go for the throat in those scenarios, but I understand the ummm..............error in that thinking when I'm doing it.

 

[G.T.]

Many of the most popular video games, such as “Call of Duty” and “Grand Theft Auto,” are violent; however, as video game technology is relatively new, there are fewer empirical studies of video game violence than other forms of media violence. Still, several meta-analytic reviews have reported negative effects of exposure to violence in video games.

A 2010 review by psychologist Craig A. Anderson and others concluded that “the evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior.” Anderson’s earlier research showed that playing violent video games can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in daily life. "One major conclusion from this and other research on violent entertainment media is that content matters," says Anderson.

What is the evidence he's using to "strongly suggest - " - ?

I actually kinda dont feel like critiquing this one study that says the area lacks study right now - - but that was a red flag, no?

Anyhoo - its getting hotter than a ....out there today!~

Just took the first two I ran into, and just like searching articles on gun control, there are studies and statistics bearing out both sides of the argument.
I had a really good cognitive psych professor once who always said in situations like this (I think we were talking about nature v nurture) the truth is somewhere in the middle. Same with media influence on violence, probably. Both sides have valid points.

Time to plant your tomatoes!

I understand - but I'm willing to fight for the level of unapologetic freedom that is free speech in light of the especial scenario where violent crime is on the decrease.

Explain how Active Shooter or Grand Theft Auto is "freedom of speech." Honestly, I don't get how it applies.

In my opinion how does it apply? (because I don't know the strict constitutional implication of how it applies, I just have my opinion on freedom of speech and all that it entails to *me*)

But to me, I think it's an explicit interpretation of the literal words....and in this sense, the game is a form of art or entertainment - I'd categorize those as speech, and freedom to me is their unimpeded(by law) ability to do so.

 

[OldLady]

Many of the most popular video games, such as “Call of Duty” and “Grand Theft Auto,” are violent; however, as video game technology is relatively new, there are fewer empirical studies of video game violence than other forms of media violence. Still, several meta-analytic reviews have reported negative effects of exposure to violence in video games.

A 2010 review by psychologist Craig A. Anderson and others concluded that “the evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior.” Anderson’s earlier research showed that playing violent video games can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in daily life. "One major conclusion from this and other research on violent entertainment media is that content matters," says Anderson.

Thanks, real data.

Needs more recent research --- 8 years ago most games were not NEARLY as violent or violence directed at people as are available now. Games were more cartoony -- I think this is a recent issue. PUBG, in which people shoot each other's avatars instead of pre-programmed NPCs (non-playing characters) only came out last year, for instance.

Certainly violent games (movies, books) increase violent moods and thoughts! I agree. But --- does that matter? Does someone go out and shoot up the school with Dad's AR-15 because he just played PUBG and got killed 16 times in a row? (You only win one in a hundred times, so such frustration is the norm, they say ----- I've never won so I'm pretty far behind, if that's true. Got close several times.) I want to see how these game feelings translate to real life violence, if they do. Mostly people just rage quit, in my experience. And go do something else, non-violent. I usually make supper.

Like I told G.T., I didn't spend a lot of time on it. I have read studies before but I realized I was going to find as many that say No as say Yes. There certainly is a body of research out there, if you are interested. I believe it is a larger issue, of tacit approval of gun violence by using it as entertainment which feeds a culture that has become increasingly violent.

 

[G.T.]

Many of the most popular video games, such as “Call of Duty” and “Grand Theft Auto,” are violent; however, as video game technology is relatively new, there are fewer empirical studies of video game violence than other forms of media violence. Still, several meta-analytic reviews have reported negative effects of exposure to violence in video games.

A 2010 review by psychologist Craig A. Anderson and others concluded that “the evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior.” Anderson’s earlier research showed that playing violent video games can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in daily life. "One major conclusion from this and other research on violent entertainment media is that content matters," says Anderson.

Thanks, real data.

Needs more recent research --- 8 years ago most games were not NEARLY as violent or violence directed at people as are available now. Games were more cartoony -- I think this is a recent issue. PUBG, in which people shoot each other's avatars instead of pre-programmed NPCs (non-playing characters) only came out last year, for instance.

Certainly violent games (movies, books) increase violent moods and thoughts! I agree. But --- does that matter? Does someone go out and shoot up the school with Dad's AR-15 because he just played PUBG and got killed 16 times in a row? (You only win one in a hundred times, so such frustration is the norm, they say ----- I've never won so I'm pretty far behind, if that's true. Got close several times.) I want to see how these game feelings translate to real life violence, if they do. Mostly people just rage quit, in my experience. And go do something else, non-violent. I usually make supper.

Like I told G.T., I didn't spend a lot of time on it. I have read studies before but I realized I was going to find as many that say No as say Yes. There certainly is a body of research out there, if you are interested. I believe it is a larger issue, of tacit approval of gun violence by using it as entertainment which feeds a culture that has become increasingly violent.

Based on violent crime decreasing?

I took the time out to GIVE YOU THE DATA....

 

[Kosh]

Many of the most popular video games, such as “Call of Duty” and “Grand Theft Auto,” are violent; however, as video game technology is relatively new, there are fewer empirical studies of video game violence than other forms of media violence. Still, several meta-analytic reviews have reported negative effects of exposure to violence in video games.

A 2010 review by psychologist Craig A. Anderson and others concluded that “the evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior.” Anderson’s earlier research showed that playing violent video games can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in daily life. "One major conclusion from this and other research on violent entertainment media is that content matters," says Anderson.

What is the evidence he's using to "strongly suggest - " - ?

I actually kinda dont feel like critiquing this one study that says the area lacks study right now - - but that was a red flag, no?

Anyhoo - its getting hotter than a ....out there today!~

Just took the first two I ran into, and just like searching articles on gun control, there are studies and statistics bearing out both sides of the argument.
I had a really good cognitive psych professor once who always said in situations like this (I think we were talking about nature v nurture) the truth is somewhere in the middle. Same with media influence on violence, probably. Both sides have valid points.

Time to plant your tomatoes!

I understand - but I'm willing to fight for the level of unapologetic freedom that is free speech in light of the especial scenario where violent crime is on the decrease.

Explain how Active Shooter or Grand Theft Auto is "freedom of speech." Honestly, I don't get how it applies.

The same as a rap song talking about killing Trump or the police.

 

[Kosh]

Many of the most popular video games, such as “Call of Duty” and “Grand Theft Auto,” are violent; however, as video game technology is relatively new, there are fewer empirical studies of video game violence than other forms of media violence. Still, several meta-analytic reviews have reported negative effects of exposure to violence in video games.

A 2010 review by psychologist Craig A. Anderson and others concluded that “the evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior.” Anderson’s earlier research showed that playing violent video games can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in daily life. "One major conclusion from this and other research on violent entertainment media is that content matters," says Anderson.

Thanks, real data.

Needs more recent research --- 8 years ago most games were not NEARLY as violent or violence directed at people as are available now. Games were more cartoony -- I think this is a recent issue. PUBG, in which people shoot each other's avatars instead of pre-programmed NPCs (non-playing characters) only came out last year, for instance.

Certainly violent games (movies, books) increase violent moods and thoughts! I agree. But --- does that matter? Does someone go out and shoot up the school with Dad's AR-15 because he just played PUBG and got killed 16 times in a row? (You only win one in a hundred times, so such frustration is the norm, they say ----- I've never won so I'm pretty far behind, if that's true. Got close several times.) I want to see how these game feelings translate to real life violence, if they do. Mostly people just rage quit, in my experience. And go do something else, non-violent. I usually make supper.

Like I told G.T., I didn't spend a lot of time on it. I have read studies before but I realized I was going to find as many that say No as say Yes. There certainly is a body of research out there, if you are interested. I believe it is a larger issue, of tacit approval of gun violence by using it as entertainment which feeds a culture that has become increasingly violent.

So did all those violent terrorists that flew planes into building and beheaded people, get influenced by violent video games?

 

[OldLady]

Many of the most popular video games, such as “Call of Duty” and “Grand Theft Auto,” are violent; however, as video game technology is relatively new, there are fewer empirical studies of video game violence than other forms of media violence. Still, several meta-analytic reviews have reported negative effects of exposure to violence in video games.

A 2010 review by psychologist Craig A. Anderson and others concluded that “the evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior.” Anderson’s earlier research showed that playing violent video games can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in daily life. "One major conclusion from this and other research on violent entertainment media is that content matters," says Anderson.

What is the evidence he's using to "strongly suggest - " - ?

I actually kinda dont feel like critiquing this one study that says the area lacks study right now - - but that was a red flag, no?

Anyhoo - its getting hotter than a ....out there today!~

Just took the first two I ran into, and just like searching articles on gun control, there are studies and statistics bearing out both sides of the argument.
I had a really good cognitive psych professor once who always said in situations like this (I think we were talking about nature v nurture) the truth is somewhere in the middle. Same with media influence on violence, probably. Both sides have valid points.

Time to plant your tomatoes!

I understand - but I'm willing to fight for the level of unapologetic freedom that is free speech in light of the especial scenario where violent crime is on the decrease.

Explain how Active Shooter or Grand Theft Auto is "freedom of speech." Honestly, I don't get how it applies.

In my opinion how does it apply? (because I don't know the strict constitutional implication of how it applies, I just have my opinion on freedom of speech and all that it entails to *me*)

But to me, I think it's an explicit interpretation of the literal words....and in this sense, the game is a form of art or entertainment - I'd categorize those as speech, and freedom to me is their unimpeded(by law) ability to do so.

Antonin Scalia's remarks in Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association, 2011
Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.

He agrees with us both. He agrees a video game deserves the protection of "Free Speech," but he also says "Video games communicate ideas -- and even social messages -- through...the player's interaction with the virtual world."
Supreme Court says video games are protected free speech, California can't regulate sales of violent games: a complete analysis

 

[OldLady]

Many of the most popular video games, such as “Call of Duty” and “Grand Theft Auto,” are violent; however, as video game technology is relatively new, there are fewer empirical studies of video game violence than other forms of media violence. Still, several meta-analytic reviews have reported negative effects of exposure to violence in video games.

A 2010 review by psychologist Craig A. Anderson and others concluded that “the evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior.” Anderson’s earlier research showed that playing violent video games can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in daily life. "One major conclusion from this and other research on violent entertainment media is that content matters," says Anderson.

What is the evidence he's using to "strongly suggest - " - ?

I actually kinda dont feel like critiquing this one study that says the area lacks study right now - - but that was a red flag, no?

Anyhoo - its getting hotter than a ....out there today!~

Just took the first two I ran into, and just like searching articles on gun control, there are studies and statistics bearing out both sides of the argument.
I had a really good cognitive psych professor once who always said in situations like this (I think we were talking about nature v nurture) the truth is somewhere in the middle. Same with media influence on violence, probably. Both sides have valid points.

Time to plant your tomatoes!

I understand - but I'm willing to fight for the level of unapologetic freedom that is free speech in light of the especial scenario where violent crime is on the decrease.

Explain how Active Shooter or Grand Theft Auto is "freedom of speech." Honestly, I don't get how it applies.

The same as a rap song talking about killing Trump or the police.

How?

 

[Kosh]

What is the evidence he's using to "strongly suggest - " - ?

I actually kinda dont feel like critiquing this one study that says the area lacks study right now - - but that was a red flag, no?

Anyhoo - its getting hotter than a ....out there today!~

Just took the first two I ran into, and just like searching articles on gun control, there are studies and statistics bearing out both sides of the argument.
I had a really good cognitive psych professor once who always said in situations like this (I think we were talking about nature v nurture) the truth is somewhere in the middle. Same with media influence on violence, probably. Both sides have valid points.

Time to plant your tomatoes!

I understand - but I'm willing to fight for the level of unapologetic freedom that is free speech in light of the especial scenario where violent crime is on the decrease.

Explain how Active Shooter or Grand Theft Auto is "freedom of speech." Honestly, I don't get how it applies.

The same as a rap song talking about killing Trump or the police.

How?

How many rappers have been condemned by the far left for talking about killing cops in their "songs"?

How many on the far left have condemned a game set in a school shooting situation?

Freedom of speech protects the rappers lyrics about killing cops. Just as it should protect the makers of the video game of people killing others in a school setting.

Do it make it right? No it does not.

Freedom of speech protects unpopular speech or unpopular "art".

 

[OldLady]

Many of the most popular video games, such as “Call of Duty” and “Grand Theft Auto,” are violent; however, as video game technology is relatively new, there are fewer empirical studies of video game violence than other forms of media violence. Still, several meta-analytic reviews have reported negative effects of exposure to violence in video games.

A 2010 review by psychologist Craig A. Anderson and others concluded that “the evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior.” Anderson’s earlier research showed that playing violent video games can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in daily life. "One major conclusion from this and other research on violent entertainment media is that content matters," says Anderson.

Thanks, real data.

Needs more recent research --- 8 years ago most games were not NEARLY as violent or violence directed at people as are available now. Games were more cartoony -- I think this is a recent issue. PUBG, in which people shoot each other's avatars instead of pre-programmed NPCs (non-playing characters) only came out last year, for instance.

Certainly violent games (movies, books) increase violent moods and thoughts! I agree. But --- does that matter? Does someone go out and shoot up the school with Dad's AR-15 because he just played PUBG and got killed 16 times in a row? (You only win one in a hundred times, so such frustration is the norm, they say ----- I've never won so I'm pretty far behind, if that's true. Got close several times.) I want to see how these game feelings translate to real life violence, if they do. Mostly people just rage quit, in my experience. And go do something else, non-violent. I usually make supper.

Like I told G.T., I didn't spend a lot of time on it. I have read studies before but I realized I was going to find as many that say No as say Yes. There certainly is a body of research out there, if you are interested. I believe it is a larger issue, of tacit approval of gun violence by using it as entertainment which feeds a culture that has become increasingly violent.

Based on violent crime decreasing?

I took the time out to GIVE YOU THE DATA....

I knew you'd say that. I heard you. I am comparing our culture today to what I remember as a kid and what other posters here remember about bringing their guns to school for rifle practice after school and such. A school shooting was completely undreamed of. A mass shooting was unheard of until the UT Austin Clock Tower shooting in 1966. Gunned down a flock of student nurses, if I remember right. It was 18 years until the next one, at a McDonalds in California. Then they start happening with more regularity, every couple of years. Now they're happening every year or more than once a year. This year will probably be a red letter year, considering we've already had two and it's not even June yet.

You're right that the homicide rate now is comparable to when I started grade school. Where, then, are these mass shootings coming from? That is not a figment of my imagination. And they were not around in 1960.

 

[G.T.]

Many of the most popular video games, such as “Call of Duty” and “Grand Theft Auto,” are violent; however, as video game technology is relatively new, there are fewer empirical studies of video game violence than other forms of media violence. Still, several meta-analytic reviews have reported negative effects of exposure to violence in video games.

A 2010 review by psychologist Craig A. Anderson and others concluded that “the evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior.” Anderson’s earlier research showed that playing violent video games can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in daily life. "One major conclusion from this and other research on violent entertainment media is that content matters," says Anderson.

Thanks, real data.

Needs more recent research --- 8 years ago most games were not NEARLY as violent or violence directed at people as are available now. Games were more cartoony -- I think this is a recent issue. PUBG, in which people shoot each other's avatars instead of pre-programmed NPCs (non-playing characters) only came out last year, for instance.

Certainly violent games (movies, books) increase violent moods and thoughts! I agree. But --- does that matter? Does someone go out and shoot up the school with Dad's AR-15 because he just played PUBG and got killed 16 times in a row? (You only win one in a hundred times, so such frustration is the norm, they say ----- I've never won so I'm pretty far behind, if that's true. Got close several times.) I want to see how these game feelings translate to real life violence, if they do. Mostly people just rage quit, in my experience. And go do something else, non-violent. I usually make supper.

Like I told G.T., I didn't spend a lot of time on it. I have read studies before but I realized I was going to find as many that say No as say Yes. There certainly is a body of research out there, if you are interested. I believe it is a larger issue, of tacit approval of gun violence by using it as entertainment which feeds a culture that has become increasingly violent.

Based on violent crime decreasing?

I took the time out to GIVE YOU THE DATA....

I knew you'd say that. I heard you. I am comparing our culture today to what I remember as a kid and what other posters here remember about bringing their guns to school for rifle practice after school and such. A school shooting was completely undreamed of. A mass shooting was unheard of until the UT Austin Clock Tower shooting in 1966. Gunned down a flock of student nurses, if I remember right. It was 18 years until the next one, at a McDonalds in California. Then they start happening with more regularity, every couple of years. Now they're happening every year or more than once a year. This year will probably be a red letter year, considering we've already had two and it's not even June yet.

You're right that the homicide rate now is comparable to when I started grade school. Where, then, are these mass shootings coming from? That is not a figment of my imagination. And they were not around in 1960.

It's not a figment of your imagination - the error, so to speak, in your reasoning is that you're using anecdotes and deciding that culture as a whole behaves this way.

Even if there were 100 school shootings a year, our culture does not "behave this way," that's still a very OUTLIER statistic from the norm.

If you didn't impose anecdotes on everyone, i.e. fallacy of over-generalization, you'd be able to see the clearer picture.

School shootings up - overall homicide down = less violent, per capita, as a culture.

 

[Circe]

If you think he's bad then you might as well leave the message board entirely. I've seen a whole hell of a lot worse here.

Let's see, you are inviting me to leave the message board because my standards for what is unacceptable differ from yours?

You want to let people insult you and yet continue to talk to them --- and that is what you have been saying --- okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. I used to do that, because it's so hard to find anyone who can discuss anything. Now my standards are higher. Who needs these worthless no-goods? Not me. If you are fine with their abuse and don't think it is abuse --- maybe he's not abusing you because he mainly hates women, that's so common --- but whatever, if you are all right with his insult talk at you, hey, enjoy. And if he doesn't insult you, sounds like the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Better you than me.

The partisan robots who are only here to feed their addiction to hate and cheer on their team in the never ending political game.

See? You also think this place is the pits. People are constantly trying to clean it up, but so far it hasn't ever happened. I think it's symptomatic of the general degradation of society and our rapid slope toward civil war: this battleground of talk is very like what was going on in the 1850s -- I read three histories about that during the summer of 2016 as everything went to pieces. Same old, same old.

G.T. is clearly not one of them, and is putting some thought provoking stuff out there with some logic and reasoning behind it.

G.T. is a louse, and he's having a great time winding everyone up. I've seen this before, often, and I expect he's posting from prison. Seriously. They can, you know. And do. I don't care if he's Einstein, if he presents his ideas swimming in a toxic soup of hostility and aggression, I don't want to read another word from him and don't plan to. I'm the one who decides things like that, not you deciding he's just fine for me to talk with because he didn't insult you and you don't care if he insults anyone else.

Your issue ideas are pretty good, IMO, so how about you stop promoting this creepazoid to me and just discuss the issues.

 

[Circe]

Time to plant your tomatoes!

That took me a minute......I think you're doing a riff on the last line of Voltaire's Candide.

 

[OldLady]

Many of the most popular video games, such as “Call of Duty” and “Grand Theft Auto,” are violent; however, as video game technology is relatively new, there are fewer empirical studies of video game violence than other forms of media violence. Still, several meta-analytic reviews have reported negative effects of exposure to violence in video games.

A 2010 review by psychologist Craig A. Anderson and others concluded that “the evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior.” Anderson’s earlier research showed that playing violent video games can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in daily life. "One major conclusion from this and other research on violent entertainment media is that content matters," says Anderson.

Thanks, real data.

Needs more recent research --- 8 years ago most games were not NEARLY as violent or violence directed at people as are available now. Games were more cartoony -- I think this is a recent issue. PUBG, in which people shoot each other's avatars instead of pre-programmed NPCs (non-playing characters) only came out last year, for instance.

Certainly violent games (movies, books) increase violent moods and thoughts! I agree. But --- does that matter? Does someone go out and shoot up the school with Dad's AR-15 because he just played PUBG and got killed 16 times in a row? (You only win one in a hundred times, so such frustration is the norm, they say ----- I've never won so I'm pretty far behind, if that's true. Got close several times.) I want to see how these game feelings translate to real life violence, if they do. Mostly people just rage quit, in my experience. And go do something else, non-violent. I usually make supper.

Like I told G.T., I didn't spend a lot of time on it. I have read studies before but I realized I was going to find as many that say No as say Yes. There certainly is a body of research out there, if you are interested. I believe it is a larger issue, of tacit approval of gun violence by using it as entertainment which feeds a culture that has become increasingly violent.

Based on violent crime decreasing?

I took the time out to GIVE YOU THE DATA....

I knew you'd say that. I heard you. I am comparing our culture today to what I remember as a kid and what other posters here remember about bringing their guns to school for rifle practice after school and such. A school shooting was completely undreamed of. A mass shooting was unheard of until the UT Austin Clock Tower shooting in 1966. Gunned down a flock of student nurses, if I remember right. It was 18 years until the next one, at a McDonalds in California. Then they start happening with more regularity, every couple of years. Now they're happening every year or more than once a year. This year will probably be a red letter year, considering we've already had two and it's not even June yet.

You're right that the homicide rate now is comparable to when I started grade school. Where, then, are these mass shootings coming from? That is not a figment of my imagination. And they were not around in 1960.

It's not a figment of your imagination - the error, so to speak, in your reasoning is that you're using anecdotes and deciding that culture as a whole behaves this way.

Even if there were 100 school shootings a year, our culture does not "behave this way," that's still a very OUTLIER statistic from the norm.

If you didn't impose anecdotes on everyone, i.e. fallacy of over-generalization, you'd be able to see the clearer picture.

School shootings up - overall homicide down = less violent, per capita, as a culture.

You have been trying to convince me for two days now that we are less violent a culture than we were thirty or forty years ago. To what end, G.T. Where do we go from here? Is it simply to correct me? I have looked at the stats. You aren't wrong. I am still very concerned about the increasing mass shootings that are happening in places all over the country with more and more frequency and you are saying this is not a reflection of our culture? Whose or what culture is it, then, if not ours? It may be an outlier, but it is sure making itself felt all over the country. We can't ignore it and say we're fine because we're murdering less people now than we did in 1990. You are puzzling me.

 

[OldLady]

Time to plant your tomatoes!

That took me a minute......I think you're doing a riff on the last line of Voltaire's Candide.

No, he said it was a hot day. My son lives in the same area G.T. does, and he's been chomping at the bit to get in his garden. It was a cold Spring.

 

[G.T.]

Thanks, real data.

Needs more recent research --- 8 years ago most games were not NEARLY as violent or violence directed at people as are available now. Games were more cartoony -- I think this is a recent issue. PUBG, in which people shoot each other's avatars instead of pre-programmed NPCs (non-playing characters) only came out last year, for instance.

Certainly violent games (movies, books) increase violent moods and thoughts! I agree. But --- does that matter? Does someone go out and shoot up the school with Dad's AR-15 because he just played PUBG and got killed 16 times in a row? (You only win one in a hundred times, so such frustration is the norm, they say ----- I've never won so I'm pretty far behind, if that's true. Got close several times.) I want to see how these game feelings translate to real life violence, if they do. Mostly people just rage quit, in my experience. And go do something else, non-violent. I usually make supper.

Like I told G.T., I didn't spend a lot of time on it. I have read studies before but I realized I was going to find as many that say No as say Yes. There certainly is a body of research out there, if you are interested. I believe it is a larger issue, of tacit approval of gun violence by using it as entertainment which feeds a culture that has become increasingly violent.

Based on violent crime decreasing?

I took the time out to GIVE YOU THE DATA....

I knew you'd say that. I heard you. I am comparing our culture today to what I remember as a kid and what other posters here remember about bringing their guns to school for rifle practice after school and such. A school shooting was completely undreamed of. A mass shooting was unheard of until the UT Austin Clock Tower shooting in 1966. Gunned down a flock of student nurses, if I remember right. It was 18 years until the next one, at a McDonalds in California. Then they start happening with more regularity, every couple of years. Now they're happening every year or more than once a year. This year will probably be a red letter year, considering we've already had two and it's not even June yet.

You're right that the homicide rate now is comparable to when I started grade school. Where, then, are these mass shootings coming from? That is not a figment of my imagination. And they were not around in 1960.

It's not a figment of your imagination - the error, so to speak, in your reasoning is that you're using anecdotes and deciding that culture as a whole behaves this way.

Even if there were 100 school shootings a year, our culture does not "behave this way," that's still a very OUTLIER statistic from the norm.

If you didn't impose anecdotes on everyone, i.e. fallacy of over-generalization, you'd be able to see the clearer picture.

School shootings up - overall homicide down = less violent, per capita, as a culture.

You have been trying to convince me for two days now that we are less violent a culture than we were thirty or forty years ago. To what end, G.T. Where do we go from here? Is it simply to correct me? I have looked at the stats. You aren't wrong. I am still very concerned about the increasing mass shootings that are happening in places all over the country with more and more frequency and you are saying this is not a reflection of our culture? Whose or what culture is it, then, if not ours? It may be an outlier, but it is sure making itself felt all over the country. We can't ignore it and say we're fine because we're murdering less people now than we did in 1990. You are puzzling me.

If your family has 100, 000 people in it and 5 of them like to pee in public...


is the culture of your entire 100,000 person family ....one of public pissers? (of course not)

It's a disturbed thing to say that our culture is one of mass shooters . .when not only are mass shooters less than the scenario I painted above ....but 5 in 100,000 would be ALL homicides....not just school shooters, which makes it even MORE heinous to try to paint this as a "thing of our culture."

its totally not, CLEARLY. Its the culture of a handful of jerkoffs out of 320 fuckin MILLION people....NOT of everyone else.

What im trying to get you to stop doing with providing you with hard data...is to stop saying its our culture. It isnt. 0.0000067% of people being scum doesnt make the rest of us a culture of scum. Its preposterous.