| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Starcraft, HALO and mass murder https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9498 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Dash [ Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Starcraft, HALO and mass murder |
Chuck Todd on Hardball: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chuck-todd-w ... a-problem/ Quote: “If your kid, for three hours, is disappearing in the basement doing nothing but playing Halo, you may want to make sure your kid doesn’t have a problem,” Todd concluded. “Well said,” Matthews added. CNN: Starcraft can lead to violence. http://youtu.be/MHzTlkAGNIE |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
While you're at it, make sure they don't spend a couple hours a week at church or mosque. That's been known to lead to violence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence Oh, no listening to rap "music", either. Or rock music. Or country music. Or music in general. Music can lead to violence. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/03/us/03hiphop.html?_r=0 And television and movies. Those lead to violence. http://www.cybercollege.com/violence.htm And comic books. Those lead to violence. http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/11/0 ... rtainment/ You know what? Better make sure they're not human. Being human leads to violence. |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Talya wrote: You know what? Better make sure they're not human. Being human leads to violence. You spoke too soon: http://animalsbeingdicks.com/ |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Hopwin wrote: Talya wrote: You know what? Better make sure they're not human. Being human leads to violence. You spoke too soon: http://animalsbeingdicks.com/ That settles it. Being alive leads to violence. Guess we should kill everything to ensure the violence stops. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I heard eating causes diabetes, too. |
|
| Author: | FarSky [ Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Being alive also leads to death. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Living is a lethal sexual transmitted disease. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Starcraft, HALO and mass murder |
Nothing wrong with monitoring the intake of the little minds under your authority, but I don't think that is where Chuck was headed. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Starcraft, HALO and mass murder |
If your kid is closeting themself and foregoing all social contact that's where the problem lies, not in whatever video games they're playing. I don't see that learning colossus counters Terran bio really translates to "shoot up your local school." |
|
| Author: | Colphax [ Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Starcraft, HALO and mass murder |
Yeah, the mass media is engaged in a huge "Let's DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING!!!1!" campaign. I love the "let's ban violent video games!" connection when the Newtown shooter's favorite video game was Dance Dance Revolution according to a story I read today. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Starcraft, HALO and mass murder |
What I find hilarious is that people are focusing on guns and video games, in the face of the opportunity to push national healthcare to address the, you know, actual mental problems. Whether nationalized healthcare is a good idea or not, at least that would focus on the actual cause, but I guess it's just too tempting to politicize the tragedy in order to attack the usual demons. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The media and politicians exploiting a tragedy for their own benefit? Geez, that never occured to me! (the Internet needs a "Sarcasm" font... Stathol?) |
|
| Author: | RangerDave [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've never understood this "exploiting a tragedy" critique. When there's a bridge collapse, it's appropriate to consider design and maintenance policiies to help prevent another collapse; when there's a terrorist attack, it's reasonable to review security policies to try to stop the next attack; and when there's a mass shooting, it strikes me as equally appropriate and reasonable to discuss possible causes and policies in order to help prevent future shootings. It's not exploitation to react to a tragic event by trying to figure out how to prevent similar events from happening in the future. |
|
| Author: | FarSky [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
RangerDave wrote: It's not exploitation to react to a tragic event by trying to figure out how to prevent similar events from happening in the future. It is if the solution is something your side disagrees with. Just as after every other major shooting, it's "not been the time" to discuss gun control. That's because for gun control opponents, it's never the time. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
There's "finding out what's going wrong." and then there's "Lets use the national tragedy to make everyone who disagrees with us look heartless and get our way." |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
RangerDave wrote: I've never understood this "exploiting a tragedy" critique. When there's a bridge collapse, it's appropriate to consider design and maintenance policiies to help prevent another collapse; when there's a terrorist attack, it's reasonable to review security policies to try to stop the next attack; and when there's a mass shooting, it strikes me as equally appropriate and reasonable to discuss possible causes and policies in order to help prevent future shootings. It's not exploitation to react to a tragic event by trying to figure out how to prevent similar events from happening in the future. Retrospective analysis of cause without agenda beyond "build a better bridge" is not a solid analogy to "debate XYZ policy" in order to prevent "ABC" tragedy. This is true for at least two reasons, and the biggest and most important reason the analogy falls down is this: ultimately, cause can be determined for a bridge collapse; cause cannot be determined for "ABC" tragedy. Therefore, any "debate XYZ" policy discussion is only to push an agenda, for either side of that debate. |
|
| Author: | Numbuk [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Starcraft, HALO and mass murder |
Dash wrote: Chuck Todd on Hardball: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chuck-todd-w ... a-problem/ Quote: “If your kid, for three hours, is disappearing in the basement doing nothing but playing Halo, you may want to make sure your kid doesn’t have a problem,” Todd concluded. “Well said,” Matthews added. CNN: Starcraft can lead to violence. I hate stories like this. It's purely made to pander to parents to make them feel like it's something else's fault other than their own or their kids' own. You will never, ever hear a news media outlet say "You, parents, are the ones who are **** up." Why? Other than the language, is because News is a business. And said parents are their customers and target demographic. Just like you will never, ever hear tv news tell you that watching television can lead to violence (or that it's bad for you at all). Why? Because the news is on tv and they don't want you to ever think that watching it is a bad idea. Parents are the ones responsible for a good portion of how their kids turn out. And if their kids turn out badly, they really REALLY don't want to hear it was somehow their fault. The news media knows this, so they ease their guilt by giving them something else to blame. And, heaven forbid that parents are told their kids have Free Agency and the choices they make are their own and are of their own free will! Noooo! My little Timmy couldn't possibly make such a decision on his own. Something had to have brainwashed him!! Nope. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
RangerDave wrote: I've never understood this "exploiting a tragedy" critique. When there's a bridge collapse, it's appropriate to consider design and maintenance policiies to help prevent another collapse; when there's a terrorist attack, it's reasonable to review security policies to try to stop the next attack; and when there's a mass shooting, it strikes me as equally appropriate and reasonable to discuss possible causes and policies in order to help prevent future shootings. It's not exploitation to react to a tragic event by trying to figure out how to prevent similar events from happening in the future. While it's not unreasonable to conduct after-action reviews (for lack of a better term) in the wake of the tragedy, the exploitation comes in when people with an axe to grind start talking about reviewing specific issues, or worse, proposing new laws, regulations, and restrictions when there hasn't been any review. If a bridge collapses, trained engineers examine the wreck and determine if changes are needed, if those changes have already been made (i.e. the bridge was built before better practices were discovered), and if so, what changes have been made. The entire review is conducted with a dispassionate scientific approach. Even in such circumstances, however, you're likely to find people who are either in an emotional tizzy over loss of life if there was any, trying to cash in, or both, the media being foremost among them. In cases like mass shootings and terrorist attacks, its all the worse because unlike a bridge collapse, there's human factors to approach. No dispassionate review has been conducted yet, and it will probably take the Connecticut State Police and the FBI and/or whoever else is involved some months to do a thorough one, much like the 9/11 report to quite some time to appear. Much like 9/11, however, the report will be mostly ignored by the media and the public. Instead, both the media and the public are leaping to demand action on their favorite demons, guns and video games, and mental health gets short shrift. Public health care is an important issue to most of the same people, but while pro-public-healthcare people want it as a societal good, anti-gun people hate and fear guns. Even people who are not really anti-gun but just want more gun control treat gun control as an end in and of itself rather than a solution to a problem. This is where it turns into exploiting the tragedy. The cart is put completely in front of the horse. People start talking about what gun restrictions are needed when A) the event has not even come close to being properly evaluated yet and B) the gun restrictions are treated as the goal, and reducing mass shootings is treated as an additional reason to have them, rather than reducing the shootings being the goal, and gun restrictions being treated as one possible means. This is also why the proposed gun control measures focus on such irrelevancies as "assault weapons" and how many bullets a gun can hold. Contrast the Lautenberg amendment, which restricted who can have a gun, and did so based on an actual behavior for which the person was liable rather than "mental health evaluation before buying a gun" that both makes mental health problems secondary to whether the person tries to buy a gun and makes all sorts of unlikely assumptions about a correlation between developing mental problems and gun acquisitions. That, in turn, is better than stupid 10-round magazine limits that are the mass-shooting equivalent of trying to prevent nuclear war by quibbling over how many warheads are on any one missile. While the Lautenberg amendment is foolish and restrictive in its own way, (it was passed subsequent to VAWA and is part of the general distortion of domestic violence into "uncontrollable men beating and killing helpless women" that feminists love, and which was not yet being seriously contested in the 1990s, and the essentially lifetime nature of it is excessive), the fact that it restricts people from owning a gun based on a past violent offense is not one of its problems. But that's not what we're getting. Instead, we're getting the slobbering glee for an "assault weapons ban" or capacity limits, or a restriction, any restriction! That's what's exploitive. The tragedy is being used to push a specific "solution", because that solution is a goal in and of itself. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Starcraft, HALO and mass murder |
There is a preponderance of evidence that shows people who play violent video games are normal, well-adjusted individuals that do not run around shooting up schools and churches. Millions of people have played HALO and did not go shoot up a school. Therefore, the suggestion is so outrageously stupid that it should be discounted out of hand. This is exactly like the suggestion in the wake of the Libyan embassy bombing that the United States needed to curtail free speech. Our civil liberties need to be restricted in order to prevent a rare tragedy? That opinion is worthless. |
|
| Author: | Nitefox [ Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
RangerDave wrote: I've never understood this "exploiting a tragedy" critique. When there's a bridge collapse, it's appropriate to consider design and maintenance policiies to help prevent another collapse; when there's a terrorist attack, it's reasonable to review security policies to try to stop the next attack; and when there's a mass shooting, it strikes me as equally appropriate and reasonable to discuss possible causes and policies in order to help prevent future shootings. It's not exploitation to react to a tragic event by trying to figure out how to prevent similar events from happening in the future. What about using a national tragedy to bully your opponant to cave on issues that have zero to do with said tragedy? |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|