I like when people tack on pointless words to things. Like "liberal" to "media".Originally Posted by Shattered Dreamer
I can't find the exact article but RockPaperShotgun had an article in response to Lieberman's claims (it also might've been in response to Melanie Killen's similar claims). The article was basically breaking down the entire argument against Bulletstorm with the conclusion that the "facts" presented don't actually exist.
I can't find the exact article, but RockPaperShotgun has an article in response to Lieberman's claims (it may have been directed at Melanie Killen, who had similar claims). It was, essentially, a complete breakdown of the argument in regards to Bulletstorm. The conclusion was that a good amount of the sources that Lieberman/Killen brought up either did not exist or were not conclusive. Doing a quick search I found this article, but I don't think it is the exact one I'm talking about. Still on the topic though.
The problem with studies that blame an increase in violent crimes are, mainly, that they are either inconclusive or there are other studies that prove the exact opposite. The general consensus by anyone who isn't a crazy, whacked out nutjob is that there is no conclusive evidence to support the idea that violent video games lead to an increase in violent behavior. One of the biggest examples the pro-violence (anti-video game) side uses is the example of Columbine, Harris, and Klebold. They were "obsessed" with Doom, therefore they shot up the school because of video games. The argument does not take into account that an FBI profile of Klebold concluded that he had a series of personality disorders that made him, without the aid of video games, violent. Harris, on the other hand, was viewed as a "weak personality" and follower of Klebold. It might have been the other way around, I haven't read the study in two years and don't feel like pulling it up.
It is silly to think that violent video games heighten violent activity among youths (as the arguments typically claim) while dismissing violent television, movies, and news articles of the same nature. The majority of people (read: those without predetermined violent tendencies) will realize that a game is a work of fiction and that these things do not carry over into the real world. People who claim otherwise are, typically, grasping at straws or outright lying about certain connections.
Another interesting fact I uncovered when I was studying this entire phenomenon was the supposed "Daddy" of violent video games, Mortal Kombat, was supposed to heighten criminal activity among certain age groups when it was first released. A lot of people claimed that it did just that, except a few studies that released information stating that the level of violent crimes actually dropped around the release of Mortal Kombat. I think the studies were supported by several different groups as well.
Regardless, the entire argument is stupid.
Reply With Quote