Malik
(7/09/04)
Today I have
something a little different to look at. This is a subject
that is slightly more on the serious side of things, but is quite
near and dear to all of us geeks. The short story is that
Congress is having another battle versus the video game industry
over violent games. Once again, this could have some drastic
and painful consequences on us geeks. So, before you start
reading this, you may want to check out MSNBC.com's
take on this subject. Did you read it? Well, I'll
assume you did since this is something important to us geeks.
Now, I have been a
fan of abolishing all things that resemble censorship and unfair
biasing of any particular groups in our society, and this battle of
Congress vs. us geeks is a good chance for Congress to impose some
unfair titles upon us geeks. Most of all, we can be labeled as
violent and dangerously aggressive. As a pacifist (I'm bitchy,
but never violent), this in particular pisses me off. As
someone who strives, in all cases, to be as kind and considerate of
others as possible, I don't want to be labeled as a angry and
violent ass because of the actions of some stupid (yes, I say stupid
literally...ignorant too, but mainly stupid) researchers who know
nothing beyond the fact that Congress is paying them for research
that states that games are bad for society and a group of
upper-class snobs who have no touch with reality beyond what it
takes to gain the most votes.
On a final note,
all quotes are taken from one of two MSNBC.com news columns. I
take no credit for these (in most cases...but not the McGee quote) asinine
facts.
So, I think this
enough background for this special serious edition of Malik's
Bitchings. Let's rock...
Beginning With
Flawed Logic
"The next 12
months could see a flurry of new scrutiny of violent games because
three controversial franchises are due to release sequels. They
include “Doom,” notorious as a favorite of the Columbine
killers; “Mortal Kombat,” with its calls for a player to “finish”
opponents in myriad gruesome ways; and “Grand Theft Auto,” which
exhorted players in its latest iteration to start a Cuban-Haitian
race war."
By the way, it was
seen, after years of study, that the Columbine killers were actually
both "victims" of psychological impairments...in other
words, the games and the Marilyn Manson, and the Bowling that they
liked so much were not the causes. Hey, if some psychopath goes on a
mass-murder spree and also happened to really like Yani, would that
mean Yani is a bad influence? Somehow I doubt that congress would
see it that way...I know hearing Yani's music makes me want to turn
violent (against the offending radio). But seriously, as reported on
Slate.com back on
April 20, 2004, the real suspected reason behind the killings at
Columbine were due to the psychological states of the two
assailants. One of which is reported, by Slate.com, as having a
psychopathic mind (read up on it..."psychopath" is a word
that many of us know, but few understand...I could go all psychological
on your asses, but neither of us want that...now do we?) and the
other was depressive. In other words, for all of the dumbasses who
want to go off about how video games or music or whatever made these
two kids go on a killing spree need to shut the hell up. Usually, I
don't like to dig too deep into Slate.com, since the liberal bias of
that site is just atrocious, but I think this is the best article
I've seen on understanding how a mental state/psychological disorder
and a love of video games are NOT the same thing.
Also, is that the
worst of GTA:VC in terms of game play and your actions to complete
the game? The Haitian/Cuban conflict? Seriously...one one hand, this
is something that has been blown way out of proportion for far too
long. On the other hand...umm, I can think of plenty of other group
who suffered from stereotypes and virtual violence...how many Italians/Italian
Americans did I kill in the last two missions? I know it was far
more than the number of Haitians and Cubans Mr. Vercetti killed,
added together.
As for Mortal
Kombat...yeah...sure...I know that after I played MK for the first
time, I went around ripping the spines and hearts out of every
living creature I could find. Thankfully Congress stepped in...I
hate to think of how many cute bunny rabbits I would've slaughtered
if not for the intervention of Congress...I hate typical knee-jerk
reactions from people who deem themselves too good to play video
games. Seriously, if you don't have an idea of what range of content
can be found in games and how it fits into the scheme of things
(when you consider the context), then you should shut the hell up. I
mean, with all these Congressional members going off about the evils
of games that they've never tried (and hence are taking facts of the
games out of context), I just ask one question; How would they react
if you took one of their quotes out of context? If I took quotes
from every Congressman, Senator, etc, out of context, I could come
up with some cool quotes about their murderous pasts and all the
sexual abuse they've inflicted on their family pets. I know this is
a bit of an over-reaction on my behalf, but it's less of an
over-reaction than the current (and past) round of video game
bashing going through the federal and local governments of our
country.
Solution
On a final note,
to be serious on the aspects of taste in entertainment and the
actions of an individual; Did you know Charles Manson was a Beach
Boys fan? He was. Did you know that I enjoy occasionally listening
to the Beach Boys? I do. Does this make me as threat to the safety
of others in a way that involves "The Malik Family" and
some brutal slayings? I think not...wait...the Beach Boys are
playing on the radio right now as I type...MUST KILL! Blah.
Seriously, if someone who is crazy, unbalanced, mentally unstable,
or whatever politically (in) correct saying you want to use gets
enjoyment from some sort of entertainment, it doesn't mean shit
except that you might have something in common with a nutcase.
That's all there is to it.
So, the solution
to this biased information is as simple as two steps. First step;
people who don't know what the hell they are talking about need to
SHUT THE HELL UP! Second step; The media and politicians need to
move beyond their usual sphere of ignorance and look for the deeper
meaning and information behind instances of violence and other
problems facing society. In other words, the media should look to
it's roots to see that it can serve the public in spreading
information and not just trying to win viewer ratings with shock
value. As for the politicians...well, we as Americans (or all humans
for that matter) tend to vote for the most exciting candidates, and
not the ones who can do the best good for our society, so this crap
from politicians will keep continuing until we can learn, as a
people, to control our privilege to vote (some of us may see voting
as a right, but we should not forget that it is, at the same time, a
privilege; the only difference between a right and a privilege is
that a "right" can be revoked by a corrupt political
system, and in turn the use of that former "right" would
become a "privilege").
I Love The Smell
of Hypocrisy in The Morning
"The debate
reflects a divide in the way people perceive games. Are games
harmless, perhaps even cathartic, as many people who grew up playing
them believe? Or are they teaching kids to be more aggressive, and
in extreme cases, to kill?
To game opponents
— many of whom admit they don’t play video games — it’s the
latter. They point to new studies that purport to show a stronger
link between violent games and aggressive behavior than
ever."
So, on the note of
people claiming how certain games caused everything from the
Columbine slayings to any average school yard brawl, why don't we
take a better look at who is saying this. As the above quote says,
most video game opponents don't play games. In fact, most have never
seen anything of video games beyond the shocking images of violence
shown by the nightly news as the media tears apart GTA, Doom, or
whatever game is the target of the week.
At the same time,
I think it's safe to say that those opponents of video games who
claim to have played video games have probably never tried one of
those evil "violent" games. And I don't necessarily mean
GTA. Zelda: WW did get a V on it's rating. Also, despite what the
article on MSNBC.com says, there is violence in The Sims (I love
getting my Sim to get Mr. Goth pissed off enough to start shoving,
hehe). There is violence in almost any game. Ever intentionally
tackled the crap out of a down linebacker on one of the NFL 2K
games? I have. Violence can be found on just about any game, be it
sports, action, adventure, simulation (do you think intentionally
starting a fire disaster on Sim City doesn't leave dead Sim people?
It's arson, and arson can easily be fatal), and RPGs.
So, I wonder, what
video games have the opponents of video games played? Also, were
they games that the opponents actually would find fun. I know of a
couple people who would play Mortal Kombat, but found GTA games to
be too pointless to play. Why would they feel this way? Because it
was not their style of gaming preference.
So, what I'm
getting at is one of two points. Firstly, if you cannot stand a
game, or you've never tried a game, who are you to say that it is
the root of all evil in society? One cannot fairly judge something
that they have no experience with, or if they have a bias-inducing
experience (such as not enjoying the style of game play in GTA). So,
if Congress wants to step up and say how some matter involving
stocks, or home ownership, or suburban lifestyle, or a similar
matter is not appropriate, then I say cheers to them. However, if
they want to tell me the video games that I was raised on and they
have never even seen are pure evil, then they need to step back from
their hypocritical little sphere of fantasy that they live in and
start accepting that censorship and biased hypocrisy are never the
answer to anything. Congressional members may hold some fancy
degrees, upbringings, etc, and I may not have that, but I have
experience with games, and with a good assortment of geeks who grew
up on games, and I can tell you that the most messed up people I've
grown up with were actually the ones who played the least games
(although that is probably a coincidence, but it shows that video
games are probably not a problem...maybe the problem is deeper
down).
Secondly, I like
the fact that video game proponents are actually usually
"people who grew up playing them". Maybe this is saying
something. I mean doesn't this go back to what I was just saying?
These are the real "experts" on the affects of video games
on developing individuals; the people who grew up with the product.
I mean a doctor goes to medical school for 4-8 (or more) years to
become a doctor, and then spends a long time working before he or
she can be called an expert at their filed of practice. A teacher is
usually not tenured (which is a sign of that individual being seen
as an expert in teaching) until they have been at it for a couple
decades or more. So, these people who have been around video games
for the last 20+ years (like myself) should be the ones who are
considered the most knowledgeable on the matter. I mean if you look
at the psychologists who argue against video games, you will often
times see one common link in their backgrounds; the major theories
of psychology (biological, cognitive, behavioral,
psychoanalytical...yes I took a lot of psych in school...I'm not
proud of that...but I admit it...), they were developed and fine
tuned prior to the first ideas of electronic games. So, while these
experts on the human psyche can be great for analyzing my problems
and trying to find solutions, I don't think they are the ones who
could tell me how messed up I am by playing video games. I think the
geek community is the only source I would accept on the analysis of
video games effecting today's youth...at least until video games
become accepted enough that there is some basis beyond personal bias
to the nature of the effects of geeking out on our society...plus,
might I add (once again) that the psychologists involved in the
analysis of the Columbine killers found a psychological cause...not
a video game related cause...to their actions.
Solution
I think you'll
find the solution in there...but if you need it said again; if you
don't understand something, and you have no experience with it, then
don't share your biased and hypocritical opinions when you are a
person with considerable influence; otherwise you will only promote
censorship...which is never the solution to anything.
The Link of
Violence With Violent Games
So, is there a
real (and I mean REAL, as in not imagined in the minds of the
non-geek community) link with violent games and violent actions?
Well, I think if you consider this;
"Research by
Craig Anderson, an Iowa State University professor frequently asked
to file supportive briefs on behalf of legislators trying to
restrict the sale of games, generally goes further than other
studies in showing a strong link between game aggression and
violence." "Anderson
frequently measures aggression by the pushing of a button or
aggressive play. Game advocates question how that can be equated
with real world violence." -msnbc.com
...you will see
that there must be (that's called sarcasm)! This means I'm a violent
or aggressive person by nature since when I play an RPG, I must
usually hit the A or X (depending on the system played) like mad to
get through normal battles. Damn, I thought I was just pushing a
button, but in reality I was being aggressive. In fact, I'm being
aggressive as I type this column since I keep hitting keys (which
are each a "button") on the keyboard at an
alarming...maybe even lethal if it equates to aggression...rate.
Also, I have a habit of taunting my opponents when I play a game;
apparently this is, since it's aggressive (like how my desire to win
is also aggressive), my showing of a disturbed personality. So, what
about football players? Not in video games, but in real football
(American football). Should Congress ban football since players are
very aggressive in nature (I know I fear for my safety when I watch
a game and see a linebacker take down the QB like a sack of
potatoes!)? Oh, wait! They don't hit buttons at the same time. Thank
goodness! I was worried for a second that a gang of NFL players
would break into my home and murder me in my sleep...
So, if that's the
best research from the "people in the know" (that would be
the non-gamers who usually know nothing of geek pastimes), I think
you're probably left with an important question; how far are these
authority figures reaching up their arses to come up with something
to back up their hypocritical bias? My thought is pretty damned far.
Anyway, how much more bias could Congress look than by going to one
single source over and over when they want to prove video games as
evil? Not much more than they are looking right now unless they made
claims along the lines of "video games raped my mother!"
or some other ignorant claims that are just not physically
possible.
So, what happens
if you eliminate the biased asses from the equation? Well, I think
it would look considerably different. Maybe a little like
this;
"When
defending games, the industry often cites a 2000 Washington State
Department of Health study that found “research evidence is not
supportive of a major public concern that violent video games lead
to real-life violence.”"
or
"Another 2000
report in the Applied Developmental Psychology journal found that
“the overall picture that emerges from the present pattern of
findings is that computer game play is one manifestation of an
active and well-adjusted lifestyle.”"
Well, I guess that
would go against the claims of Mr. Anderson, now wouldn't it? So, I
can see why Congress keeps going back to this one researcher; they
don't want to lose their personal biased war...they can't let this
white whale go.
Anyway, to leave
you with a final thought that is not mine on this subject
matter;
"And even the
researchers who find evidence that violent games can lead to bad
behavior will not say how games rank among a host of other so-called
“risk factors” like poverty, abuse or neglect."
So, even those
researchers who think that games can cause violence or aggression
don't even want to comment on how big of a "threat" games
are. Aggression, by the way, is not a bad thing at all; without
aggression, we would not have the drive to be better than others
around us. Which in turn would mean that you would never have that
desire to invent something before someone else, or that desire to
make a better living, which is key in our capitalistic world...it's
only uncontrolled aggression that causes problems. I personally
think that the lack of a good environment to grow in and be a
productive member of would definitely cause more problems than my
act of repeatedly hitting "R" over and over as I yell out,
"suck it down, biznatch!" to Velveeta as I play Halo
against her. That level of aggression and button hitting, by the
way, is purely two-way (she taunts as she smashes "R" in
the same way), and only serves to influence both of us to strive
harder to be the best. In turn, this "aggression" actually
helps us to better ourselves and to nature a good friendly (that
should read: "FRIENDLY", as in we don't commit violent
acts while we play in an effort to physically or psychologically
destroy each other) rivalry. I know I'm not alone in this.
Solution
The bias and
ignorance of Congress and their hired researchers, like Mr.
Anderson, needs to end. Plain and simple, like I said only a few
paragraphs back, if you don't chose to experience something for
yourself and to evaluate it from all angles, you have no right to
throw yourself into the role of judge, jury, and executioner...nor
should you throw censorship into the equation. I mean there are a
lot of things that a majority of congressional members probably
enjoy that I would find tasteless and inappropriate, yet I know I
would never demand censorship to be imposed on them, because I know
that a persons' behavior is not set by their interests; Charlton Hesston
likes guns...a lot...doesn't mean I want to ban him from using guns
in an appropriate setting since some people have actually used guns
to commit acts of violence...he has his privilege, and we should
have ours.
A second part to
this solution would be Mr. Anderson either being told to shut the
f*** up or being asked to explain how aggressive social activities
and button pressing is related to aggressive behavior. I seriously
want to know, because this correlation is so inane and asinine that
it hurts my head to even think about it.
A Real
Solution
So, with all of
this crap in Congress about trying to limit or ban violent games due
to a completely unfounded connection between video game violence and
real violence, I think the most important factor is still, after all
the years that has passed between the first round of Mortal Kombat
vs. Congress and this new round of the Congressional bashing of
video games, being ignored is the most important. But, before I get
into that, some food for thought;
"American
McGee, who in 2000 made the last mature-rated game for Electronic
Arts, “American McGee’s Alice,” said game publishers try not
to get engaged in the debate over whether violent games cause
violent behavior.
“They look at
how hypocritical our society is when it comes to judging the content
or sexuality in the media,” McGee said. “And they look at how
these double standards or triple standards are applied to films
versus games or music versus games or written fiction versus games,
and it’s a silly argument to get involved in.”"
Just think about
that for a minute...just think...I'll be waiting.
Video games have a
ratings system that, for the most part, is being enforced. I have
seen more than a dozen times just in the month following the release
of GTA for the XBox (quite a few months ago) store clerks telling
little kids that they cannot buy GTA:Double Pack for the XBox (or
PS2) without a parent. I even saw a few ID checks to make sure the
purchaser was of age. Why is this? Because the parents/guardians of
a child should be key in the type of upbringing they get. While
someone can argue all they want (and usually to no avail, from an
academic standpoint) that video games inspire violence, but you
cannot argue that these kids who are playing the ultra violent games
had to have someone buy the game for them.
So, when it comes
down to it, why are we dealing with Congress trying to bash and
banish our beloved hobbies, when the real answer is not what the
kids are playing, but rather who bought it for them? I mean with the
many different lawsuits brought on by parents of psychopath children
who would act out in some violent manner and thus get into some
massive legal trouble, how can they have any right to sue Rockstar,
or Walmart (for selling the game), or Take Two, or Sony, or
Microsoft? Was is not these parents who bought the games for their
kids? Also, these parents are the ones who, if the games were
influencing their children in bad ways, should have noticed and
pulled the game out of their child's hands.
So, rather than
censorship, why not look at the real issue; supervision/parenting. A
parent in today's world should realize that the most important thing
they can do for their children is not sue Rockstar when the kids do
something asinine. Rather, they should be raising their children to
not do something asinine to begin with. A parent, as in a good
parent, should be able to tell from the actions of their children
when something is not balanced right in the kid's brain. At this
point, a good parent should also take the action of getting help for
their kids and not trying to pass the blame for their shitty
parenting off onto a company. Rockstar makes entertaining
products...they do not substitute for a parental figure. Ever.
So, the real
solution for all of this is to look at the real influences and
guidance a child receives (or doesn't receive) from his or her
guardian. I for one was raised with good parents who would look out
for me, be active in my upbringing, and would both reward me for
doing good and punish me for doing wrong. At the same time, they
took an active approach in seeing what activities I was involved in,
and they would halt me from doing something destructive. This led to
me understanding what is right and what is just stupid. As for my
friends and acquaintances; all of them who ended up closer to the
side of normality and morality, they had good healthy relationships
with their parents. Unfortunately, many people have children without
thinking of the responsibility involved in such an act.
For people who
have a potential of having a child, they need to consider what they
are getting into. I mean a child is a 18+ year job that you don't
get a vacation from. It is full-time. Not like a 40 hour a week
job...that is part time in comparison to being a parent. A parent
needs to be on the clock 24 hours a day, 365.25 days a year. While
this is rough for many, it can also serve as it's own reward, if you
are ready for it. You cannot pawn your responsibilities off onto the
TV, movies, music, games, or whatever else. If you step up to being
a parent, then you must be ready to do everything required of this
duty. It's like those stupid anti-pot commercials that say that you
need to keep telling your kid about the dangers of pot. The same
goes for everything else. You have to be persistent to the level of,
what would be for anything else, obsessive. However, you must also
not be too controlling since you are dealing with a unique
individual (I've seen more nut jobs come out of over-protective
houses than out of under-protective houses), since one day that
child will enter the real world and will either retreat into mommies
arms or will go forward with reckless abandon.
So, I hope that
doesn't sound too preachy. However, that is the real solution to the
issues of video games and congress. Congress should look at the
parents, and not the game companies.
Conclusion
I know this was
all a bit more on the serious side than we would normally like to
see, however the social stigma placed upon us geeks by our non-geek brethren
will only increase as these inaccurate and shame filled facts
come to light in front of the biggest fans of censorship in the
world; The United States Government. So, next week, I will try
to give something a bit more on the lighter side of geeking, but for
now, we all need to think about what may be at stake; our rights and
our personal image. If you have a thought on this, feel free
to to contact me or even
if you have a thought on something else...or check out the forums,
and tell us geeks your opinions. Malik
|