Jimquisition: Desensitized to Violence

[Wesley Brannock]

While I didn't like the suicide part I see why Jimothy Sterling used it. He wanted to show the point that real violence was different then video game violence by showing the difference not in a verbal way thats been argued a hundred times over. But in a visual way an effective way. I for one would defend the way in which it is. Why ? Simple for once the news ( to whom shows real violence all the time ) is being shown that the community at large does in fact despise real violence. I for one wouldn't be surprised if members of the site wanted this to be taken down for said reason. In that light we can't be the one's " glorifying " violence it would be C.N.N , Fox news , and other " news " outlets onto which show real violence as the " glorifiers " of violence. Besides here is one question I'd like answered by the media. Which news outlet released the killers face first video game sites or traditional news outlets ?

 

[Colt47]

The thing that bugs me is that most of us at the escapist already agree with the point of view that Jim is showing. The ones who need convincing frequent other outlets of information.

 

[Oskuro]

First, congratulations Jim, for another great video. Hope it reaches those who need to see this argument.


While you were mentioning how mass media exploits actual violence, I remembered the incident where the picture of a man about to be run over by the NY subway ended on the cover of a newspaper. Classy, real classy.

 

[schwitz]

Sterling,

Gotta say, I loved this video. Its about time somebody in or close to the industry took a decent stand against the media. The violent bit didn't really phase me in the slightest, but that's cause I've seen worse (unfortunately) but I believe it was necessary to the video to show it, to prove the point that they are very different things.

If the media wants to point the finger at games, then it basically has to point it at Movies, Music, TV, Internet and even Books. The amount of fake violence we encounter from day to day life is ridiculous, but to focus on just one area of it is even more so.

 

[Spearmaster]

We can apply Jim's logic about violence in video games to everything in video games right? Sexism in games is ok because its not really like "real" sexism, same with racism, not really "real" so its ok right? I doesn't affect people the same way right? Or are we splitting hairs?

Don't get me wrong I'm not condemning any video games for anything they contain, they are a free art form, you cant blame them for murders, those are done out of a persons free will. I did like the use of the video clip, had nothing to do with video game violence, hell was not even violent but +10 for shock and awe , maybe some people need to see real death to have more respect for it because if video games had real violence in them a lot of people couldn't handle them.

P.S.- Blaming video games makes about as much logical sense as blaming guns right?

Not really. Violence in video games is a none-crime. They're easy to identify fakeness and no victim. Violence in Video games doesn't encourage people to go out and shoot someone, nor does it glorify such a suggestion.

Sexism in video games, can be horrendously sexist depending on the context. In such as Duke Nukem 3D, the sexist element is in keeping with the Duke image. It's a spoof of muscle-bound action hero stero-types and the sexism is part of that spoofing. Duke Nukem 3D in my opinion was far better at sending the message that sexism is for assholes than, say, Sucker Punch.
In contrast to that though is the explosion of (especially in MMORPG) of stereotyped women. The females in these games have universally worryingly thin waists, supporting massive Breasts, wearing heavy armour which is basically non-existant, often taking the form of little more than a skimpy metal bikini. Usualy drawn into loading screens with in highly questionable poses.It's the lack of variety and common occurence which make this sexist. Women in such games are objectified and reduced to this one form, while men typically have a much greater variety of body shapes to choose from. Including over-weight in many games. Women are not given the same choices. They can be small, thin with big boobs, medium height, thin with big boobs or tall, thin with big boobs.
All women are victimised by the impression that this prevelence sends.

"Not really. Violence in video games is a none-crime. They're easy to identify fakeness and no victim. Violence in Video games doesn't encourage people to go out and shoot someone, nor does it glorify such a suggestion."

Cant most of these points be made for sexism in games also? Easy to identify fakeness? Is this a double standard? Also how do violent video games not glorify violence when they give you rewards for it? Sexism in games does not give a reward for committing sexism, well perhaps some Japanese games do.

The points you made tell what sexism is in games but I still don't see how Jim's argument for violence in video games cant be applied to sexism in video games, its not real and people can tell the difference, what if his video was on sexism instead and instead of the suicide clip he showed a XXX rated hardcore pornographic clip of a submissive woman in a maids outfit pleasuring a man, just to show how sexism in games is fake and how people can tell the difference so it doesn't really affect them. Just like violence.

I don't like sexism in games, I was just using it for a parallel to show the weakness in both arguments.

 

[Shendril]

I am a regular follower of the escapist for several years now. I even recommend it to a lot of other people, since part of my work and art deals with the critical examination of 'games'.

Now I finally signed up and made an account, just to be able to comment on this video.

So Jim, you just earned the "Made someone overcome his 'I-do-not-want-to-register-here!'-attitude" achievement.

Thank you for your effort, to show the video as you did. The way you dealt with this really delicate matter was very responsible, with the age-check and all. I was really surprised, when the window showed up, and I was shocked, when I saw the footage. I haven't seen it before, it deeply shocked me...

...and it was the best, straight to the face approach to the whole 'violent games make violent kids'-discussion in society and media.

What I especially like, is that you not only put the finger on the sex&violence promoting strategies of the mass media, but you also reflect a very important fact about the various members of the modern gaming-culture: they are responsible!

Since the early 80's young people with an affinity to hightech and computers were put in the geek-clichee. Over the last 30 years the 'gamer-clichee' split from that and... but I am changing subject here.

Back to 'they are responsible': By giving feedback about the gamers reaction and the discussions with the escapist management you showed, that gamers are very well aware of what they consume and to what extend. It also showed, that the gaming community is willing to speak up and discuss a disturbing issue like this, which shows civil-courage and social engagement. Funny, considering the fact, that most mass-media presents gamers as isolated, more or less dysfunctional screen-addicts.

This very mature approach on violence, the constructive reactions from the viewers, gamers and escapists also helps our beloved medium, the game, to become a more mature, critic and responsible medium. A piece of art.

I am thankful, I had the Jimquisition here

So long
Shendril

 

[SoopaSte123]

That clip was too tough for me to watch. I had to look away. Ughhhh... Valid points as always. Thank god for you, Jim.

 

[Althenias]

I agree completely with you on the sandy hook shooting, I understand people want to know about this traumatic event but the way the killer was given 24 hour news coverage was appalling. The news studios need to flip these events, if they're going to cover them. focus on the victims, on what they're going through and let the killer be forgotten, punished and forgotten.

 

[O maestre]

hmmm odd i didn't get to big of a reaction from the video, either i have seen it before and can't remember or have become desensitized, although i do not believe it is on account of gaming but rather from my previous work as firefighter if anything. traffic accidents and building collapses have given me insight into injuries just as "messy" as the suicide... the most disturbing thing has to be dead children, now that is nightmarish on a whole other level.

 

[Godhead]

You know, I think that you can find gamers feel uncomfortable with violence in video games too. I know for a fact that I felt like shit with Spec Ops: The Line, and all of my friends who I got to play with, who all play "violent video games" on a pretty regular basis, said that it was fucked up.

If presented well, violence in video games, even though it will never be as realistic and be a little cartoony in comparison to real life, can still make you feel bad.

 

[almostgold]

"Any sane civilian is going to be terrified of guns".

Well fuck you, Jim. Thanks for calling me insane, along with most of my family.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

i did not watch the Budd Dwyer suicide part. i have seen it before and have no desire to ever see it again.
i agree and a video. nothing said in the video is new to me. so i got nothing to contribution beyond a more in-dept video on the subject of video game violence, the recent shooting, and the media

Spoiler

 

[Fornus]

'Any sane civilian is gonna be terrified of guns"
I disagree, as an avid hunter and legal owner of firearms, which in my country entails mental health checks and a licensing regime, Id say that most fear of firearms is borne of ignorance and the mysticism/glorification of firearms in the media, be they video games or movies.

Once you understand how they work, respect the inherent hazards, and use them responsibly, the mysticism and fear is gone.
You realise they are a tool and that you need to be more worried about the person holding them than blaming the the tool itself.
As with any tool, there are accidents, and there are criminal misuses.
Media has tried so hard to instill into the public a scary image of firearms, anyone who has used one knows its mostly fabrication and demonising.

Im amazed more people arent afraid of knives, if COD teaches gamers anything, its that a man can run through your hail of bullets and stab you in the throat if hes close enough..
Of course, the difference is pretty much everyone has wielded a knife, and understand what it is, how its dangerous, its limitations etc., and thats its more about being wary of the person holding it.

Totally agree with the difference between video game gore and real-life violence, ones fun, over-the-top, and disposable, the other is gruesome, smelly and permanent.

 

[Akimoto]

Jim, I don't understand why time is still wasted on talking to people who are dead convinced that violent games create Mr. Hydes. Haven't we as a community been down this road before? Heck, my parents still believe that anime is only for kids - my point being that maybe it's better for us gamers to sink back into obscurity.

Great show nevertheless, but I won't be watching it again. Now excuse me while I get some comfort food and hope to attain your glorious size.

 

[Mr F.]

While I didn't like the suicide part I see why Jimothy Sterling used it. He wanted to show the point that real violence was different then video game violence by showing the difference not in a verbal way thats been argued a hundred times over. But in a visual way an effective way. I for one would defend the way in which it is. Why ? Simple for once the news ( to whom shows real violence all the time ) is being shown that the community at large does in fact despise real violence. I for one wouldn't be surprised if members of the site wanted this to be taken down for said reason. In that light we can't be the one's " glorifying " violence it would be C.N.N , Fox news , and other " news " outlets onto which show real violence as the " glorifiers " of violence. Besides here is one question I'd like answered by the media. Which news outlet released the killers face first video game sites or traditional news outlets ?

Guh.

My girlfriend pointed me towards the video (And the thread) based on the logic that she would get to see some wonderful, wonderful rage on my part. She does so love my rants.

Gonna jump over your first arguments and strait to your assumptions that in comparison to games, it is the News media that glorifies violence. If informing people of a situation is the glorification of a situation, then I glorify racism. I am currently glorifying in the mire of Sociology (As I am being informed of a situation). The authors who write books glorify the subject matter of the book, regardless of what the book is about. I glorify the act of rape because a poem I once wrote got into a book about dealing with rape. Huh. Your logic is broken.

See, that is all I am picking apart here. Yes, the news media shows "Real" violence whilst gamers dont have to deal with real violence. Yet one is to inform (And entertain, to a degree, depends on the news outlet) and the other is to purely entertain. I don't watch the news (Or read it, as is more common with me) because I love seeing the corpses of young Syrian men. I watch it because I wish to remain informed as to the hell these people are going through.

Finally, the question you wish to ask the media:
Of course it was the fucking news media that released his face first. Gaming websites do not cover that kind of story, gaming websites do not have the resources to cover that kind of story. You might as well say "I want to know which media showed fight scenes from Soul Calibur" and use that as proof that gaming media is more violent then the reverse.

This argument is not as simple as Jim would like to argue. But I wont drag myself into the mire of this thread.

Just pick apart a single post, point out the mistakes in the logic and the central argument, and then step out.

 

[Falsename]

.....Wow. That was incredible!

The point he made was good, sure. And I fully agree but the thing that captured my attention the most was that...

THAT WAS THE MOST SATISFYING 'FUCK OFF' I'VE EVER HEARD!

Jim: "Ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff-uck off!"

And it was executed with such style. The ramp up actually whistled for a moment before hitting the crescendo.

Love you Jim.



Also, completely agree. It's just one of many reasons why games can't be blamed for violence. But of course we're all wrong and the NRA is completely right in that Americans should have armed guards at their school and easier access to guns. Why? Because 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'.

NRA, in the words of the only man on Earth that matters: "Ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff-uck off".

 

[Wesley Brannock]

While I didn't like the suicide part I see why Jimothy Sterling used it. He wanted to show the point that real violence was different then video game violence by showing the difference not in a verbal way thats been argued a hundred times over. But in a visual way an effective way. I for one would defend the way in which it is. Why ? Simple for once the news ( to whom shows real violence all the time ) is being shown that the community at large does in fact despise real violence. I for one wouldn't be surprised if members of the site wanted this to be taken down for said reason. In that light we can't be the one's " glorifying " violence it would be C.N.N , Fox news , and other " news " outlets onto which show real violence as the " glorifiers " of violence. Besides here is one question I'd like answered by the media. Which news outlet released the killers face first video game sites or traditional news outlets ?

Guh.

My girlfriend pointed me towards the video (And the thread) based on the logic that she would get to see some wonderful, wonderful rage on my part. She does so love my rants.

Gonna jump over your first arguments and strait to your assumptions that in comparison to games, it is the News media that glorifies violence. If informing people of a situation is the glorification of a situation, then I glorify racism. I am currently glorifying in the mire of Sociology (As I am being informed of a situation). The authors who write books glorify the subject matter of the book, regardless of what the book is about. I glorify the act of rape because a poem I once wrote got into a book about dealing with rape. Huh. Your logic is broken.

See, that is all I am picking apart here. Yes, the news media shows "Real" violence whilst gamers dont have to deal with real violence. Yet one is to inform (And entertain, to a degree, depends on the news outlet) and the other is to purely entertain. I don't watch the news (Or read it, as is more common with me) because I love seeing the corpses of young Syrian men. I watch it because I wish to remain informed as to the hell these people are going through.

Finally, the question you wish to ask the media:
Of course it was the fucking news media that released his face first. Gaming websites do not cover that kind of story, gaming websites do not have the resources to cover that kind of story. You might as well say "I want to know which media showed fight scenes from Soul Calibur" and use that as proof that gaming media is more violent then the reverse.

This argument is not as simple as Jim would like to argue. But I wont drag myself into the mire of this thread.

Just pick apart a single post, point out the mistakes in the logic and the central argument, and then step out.

The point to " inform " the people has long since left the media now its about making killers famous REAL killers mind you not fictional ones. If " informing " now a days means constantly covering a story to the point of harassing the families of murder victims then yes they are " informing ". If " informing " means that your going to turn everything you don't approve of into a WITCH HUNT because something " newsworthy " happened then yes they are " informing ". If " informing " means telling people that the guns , video games , or whatever is to blame then yes they are " informing ". If " informing " means covering only one story of lives being lost all week long then yes they are " informing ". The line between " informing " and glorifying is thin. However on a almost daily basis is being stomped on , spit on by the very people to whom are SUPPOSED to uphold it. My way of confirming this is the FACT in less then ten minutes they managed to politicize it. They politicized it by pointing a finger at everyone but the killer. I can't take the view point of a " news " company seriously when they cover a school shooting and follow it by saying. " This is responsible for the mass killing is ( enter preference ) instead of the shooter ". That person who shot up the school was to blame for the incident yet they will instead blame whatever scapegoat they can find. While people will call it " informing " when instead it simply a format for demonizing that to which had no part in any wrong doing. Tell me did a video game pull the trigger or a PERSON. Did the gun pull its own trigger or did that require a PERSON. Did the entire society kill those kids or did one PERSON do it. All I blame the media for is turning the killer into a star of sorts. People that do horrible things should be forgotten in time while the teachers that used their own bodies to shield the children from a rain of bullets should be remember for their bravery. Yet most people can only remember the name and face of the shooter. Why ? Simple the " news " wanted to " inform " people. ( This is the one and only response I will do. )

 

[Levethian]

Hrm. With your emphasis on the presentation of violence within games, are you suggesting that if violence was depicted in a 'properly realistic' manner akin to the suicide clip, it should disturb me? For me, knowing that something is fictional is the critical distinction - context, not so much how it looks.

Thank God for you.

And RE the above debates, the job of News Media is surely to secure readers/viewers, not necessarily to inform...

 

[KiloFox]

Do you reckon you could edit it what the graphic content is in the description so people know what it is?

Can someone explain to me what the purpose of what happened in the content was? As in why the person did it?

i actually do wanna know why. when he pulled out the gun everyone freaked, but it looked like he was gonna try and demonstrate a point but never got around to it. i would like some context.


OT though, i actually wasn't disturbed at all on the footage. he pulled the gun, people freaked, he looked like he was trying to calm them down to explain something, they got louder, he shot himself. i had the same expression the entire time, and i didn't really feel any different before, after, or during. now i'm not gonna claim that games desensitized me to violence, that's bullshit. i'm just broken in the head naturally and i know that. in fact, i have the intelligence to hide it most of the time and never do anything about it. and just because i, in particular, wasn't disturbed, dosn't mean that nobody else was. i am not a representation of the rest of gamers, and neither is anyone else who plays games then goes out killing people. they're just a small minority of people who are already broken, but just happen to play games. i'm just smart enough not to go bat-shit insane and do something stupid like that. i enjoy living free to play my games and be my weird-ass self.