Nice episode, good argument and an important point well made.
Dwyer appears to be a real unique case, shame on me i haven't heard of him before, but not to uncommon considering i'm not living in the USA. Watching the footage gave me some shivers and felt uncomfortable in a way different to anything else before and still, it was only footage, not the actual experience. I've already seen some minor violence first hand and mayor injuries and death when i was working in a hospital, but still, different circumstances make for different reactions and seeing someone wither from disease, or even suffer in pain from mayor injuries isn't really comparable. Also, the case of Dwyer itself appears to be rather interesting, to bad the part from Wikipedia describing the aftermath is more about the discussion of disturbing footage in media and not about the discussion of his actual intent.
On depiction of violence in media and especially games itself this
RC1138 said:
*snip*
It doesn't prepare or desensitize you to what you see when it's right there in front of you. In the same regard to a flight sim trainer for pilots. It doesn't, and isn't trying, to make the action of ACTUALLY flying the plane indistinguishable from the flight sim, but it makes the fear, apprehension, and hesitation from getting into a real cockpit less fearful. Violence in media is the same thing. I don't care how many SAW's you've seen or other gore flicks, when you see a real head blown off someone, it gets to you. But what seeing those movies or playing games like them DOES do is make you far less likely to recoil BEFORE you see it.
*snip*
sums up what i've learned about it quite well.
I'm studying this stuff at university and interestingly enough, the very next two sessions in a seminar about interactive media [games] is about just that, violence in video games.
As far as i know, media has "some" effect and especially video games have increased effects, considering their high immersion, but often put wrong in public, those effects aren't about actual behavior, but about ideas of behavior. Looking at often controversially discussed topics in comparison: If you watch lots of porn or other media with sexual content, you're neither turning into a sex machine, nor necessarily drawn towards a swinger-lifestyle or whatever, but it does influence the attitude towards sex or may lessen inhibitions. Similar it is with violence, seeing it in media, or playing "killer-games" won't turn anyone into a killer, this is simple make-believe and obviously intended to shift responsibility (i've already ranted enough about this on many occasions), but it does influence the attitude towards violence and may lessen inhibitions, then again our inhibitions towards violence are usually much stronger than those of sex or any other topic and the actual act of violence is a very different thing and that is for reasons: Shame of sex for example is an irrational social construct (at least to a higher extend), considering it is part of our natural behavior and reproduction cycle, while inhibition towards violence is rational, considering it is only useful for hunting or defense, but pretty much useless or actually hindering our survival as aggression towards each other or harmless beings (it only is a "dog eat dog world" if we choose to, which is stupid, but i guess that's another topic).
Breaking it down, to say media would have no effect at all would be denying the effects of societal interactions, while claiming it would desensitize the average human to actual violence or even produce "killers" is responsibility shifting make-believe.
Though, compared to many other episodes, this one kinda feels like preaching to the choir.
Another thing i recognized while reading the comments is how some point out and drag it towards the discussion of guns and gun-owning.
I... think it shows the current public interest... and i've thought about it very hard and even deleted a possible comment about it before posting because i couldn't stop myself from going on and on about it. Just want to say this: Not guns kill people, but people kill people, sure. However even if the relations are often described to simple, just as those of gaming, guns are weapons and in our current age, countries with fewer guns have fewer people killed in general, statistically speaking. Just check and think about it yourself.
Susan Arendt said:
*snip*
Some people will undoubtedly find the overcaution a bit excessive, but I believe enough people will appreciate it to have made it the right approach.
Though i'm legaly allowed to watch it, i didn't bother to take the time putting in my actual date, would've taken "to much time", however, the warning is very much appreciated
Enough for now.
So once again, fffffffffuuuck yes and thank god for you Jim
Gah, Flower Dafoe is dancing, what the heck?!
edit
m19 said:
People talk about being desensitized to violence as some evil thing. But being able to handle violence isn't the same as lacking empathy or compassion. Being hypersensitive isn't healthy either.
i think you're right, being hypersensitive isn't good, but in context, this is less about the perception, but about the relations and causes of violence and i would say those are deconstructive parts of society.