Prosecutors Blame "Violent" World of Warcraft for Breivik's Shooting Spree

[Woodsey]

My initial reaction was a deep, hearty laugh from the nether-regions of my throat.

The second? A facepalm.

Also of note: 'a "first-person-shooter called Modern Warfare'. Because no one's fucking heard of that, amirite?

 

[Vrach]

World of Warcraft's ESRB rating​

It says so on the sticker, it must be true. Of course it's violent. But there's different degrees of violent content and if your reading skills went past the face value of what's written, you'd understand why people are making fun of them and dismissing their credibility (that they've lost with way, WAY more than just this argument)

I'm not sure why you felt the need to insult me, but it's not much cared for and did nothing to help your point.

I was simply commenting on the absurdity of discrediting, mocking and outright refusing to read an article based on, and I'll give you an exact quote here, "played the violent computer game World of Warcraft." The game is violent and that is all that was said. The title of this thread is sensationalist and pure knee-jerk in response, as nowhere in the entire article was the video game, or any other, blamed for the shootings.

Some people here simply jump the gun the gun whenever violence is mentioned and assume the other party is calling the game the son of Satan. As you said, there are many forms of violence and many degrees of violence. World of Warcraft happens to contain a degree. That is all that was said or inferred.

Perhaps it was you who didn't look beyond the surface.

Wasn't really an insult, just a dismissal of your argument parallel to your dismissal of everyone else's based on a faulty one of your own. The title of this thread is not sensationalist, it merely draws a very logical conclusion that the article it cites expects their viewer to draw.

You don't have to say something outright for it to be something you said, it's exactly what I meant with my "read between the lines" 'insult'. It's very obvious from the article what reaction they were going for and this thread is reacting to just that.

Actually, the prosecution is arguing the gunmen is legally insane and not that video games had anything to do with it. They argue he suffers a form of psychosis that renders him unable to determine the difference between fantasy and reality, causing him to not fully appreciate his crimes. The video game was mentioned as evidence of the man's extreme isolation (he openly admits he used the digital world to escape contact with others). When the time came for him to commit the murders, the prosecution is arguing he was not totally aware of the consequences.

Again, the gamers that are giving in to knee-jerk emotion and of whom are commenting before understanding or even reading the actual story, are the ones causing the problem. This thread is part of that problem, even; it is a blatant grab for attention on a gaming site and purely sensationalist. A violent video game was mentioned, not in causality, but in correlation and some gamers erupted into a frenzy of ignorance.

I'm not arguing the prosecution (there's stuff to argue there as well, but I haven't the time nor the interest), I'm arguing the article. Read it. Just read it, again if you need to. If you don't get what I mean by what I said previously still, I won't waste any more time trying to explain, as one glance at the article, let alone a read-through makes it very obvious what it's trying to paint as a picture for its audience.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

My initial reaction was a deep, hearty laugh from the nether-regions of my throat.

The second? A facepalm.

Also of note: 'a "first-person-shooter called Modern Warfare'. Because no one's fucking heard of that, amirite?

Your average person? They wouldn't have heard of it. It's easy to be consumed by your chosen community, but, outside of gaming, not many people at all would recognize Modern Warfare. If you live with people who don't game, ask them what Modern Warfare is. Unless you actively talk to them about it, I highly doubt they'd know it was a video game.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

World of Warcraft's ESRB rating​

It says so on the sticker, it must be true. Of course it's violent. But there's different degrees of violent content and if your reading skills went past the face value of what's written, you'd understand why people are making fun of them and dismissing their credibility (that they've lost with way, WAY more than just this argument)

I'm not sure why you felt the need to insult me, but it's not much cared for and did nothing to help your point.

I was simply commenting on the absurdity of discrediting, mocking and outright refusing to read an article based on, and I'll give you an exact quote here, "played the violent computer game World of Warcraft." The game is violent and that is all that was said. The title of this thread is sensationalist and pure knee-jerk in response, as nowhere in the entire article was the video game, or any other, blamed for the shootings.

Some people here simply jump the gun the gun whenever violence is mentioned and assume the other party is calling the game the son of Satan. As you said, there are many forms of violence and many degrees of violence. World of Warcraft happens to contain a degree. That is all that was said or inferred.

Perhaps it was you who didn't look beyond the surface.

Wasn't really an insult, just a dismissal of your argument parallel to your dismissal of everyone else's based on a faulty one of your own. The title of this thread is not sensationalist, it merely draws a very logical conclusion that the article it cites expects their viewer to draw.

You don't have to say something outright for it to be something you said, it's exactly what I meant with my "read between the lines" 'insult'. It's very obvious from the article what reaction they were going for and this thread is reacting to just that.

Actually, the prosecution is arguing the gunmen is legally insane and not that video games had anything to do with it. They argue he suffers a form of psychosis that renders him unable to determine the difference between fantasy and reality, causing him to not fully appreciate his crimes. The video game was mentioned as evidence of the man's extreme isolation (he openly admits he used the digital world to escape contact with others). When the time came for him to commit the murders, the prosecution is arguing he was not totally aware of the consequences.

Again, the gamers that are giving in to knee-jerk emotion and of whom are commenting before understanding or even reading the actual story, are the ones causing the problem. This thread is part of that problem, even; it is a blatant grab for attention on a gaming site and purely sensationalist. A violent video game was mentioned, not in causality, but in correlation and some gamers erupted into a frenzy of ignorance.

I'm not arguing the prosecution (there's stuff to argue there as well, but I haven't the time nor the interest), I'm arguing the article. Read it. Just read it, again if you need to. If you don't get what I mean by what I said previously still, I won't waste any more time trying to explain, as one glance at the article, let alone a read-through makes it very obvious what it's trying to paint as a picture for its audience.

You've yet to actually show any evidence for your claims, let alone enough to warrant your smug attitude. All you've offered is your belief that the article is preaching the violent video games cause violence message, but you've yet to show where or how. Conjecture and blanket statements wont make your argument for you.

 

[Woodsey]

My initial reaction was a deep, hearty laugh from the nether-regions of my throat.

The second? A facepalm.

Also of note: 'a "first-person-shooter called Modern Warfare'. Because no one's fucking heard of that, amirite?

Your average person? They wouldn't have heard of it. It's easy to be consumed by your chosen community, but, outside of gaming, not many people at all would recognize Modern Warfare. If you live with people who don't game, ask them what Modern Warfare is. Unless you actively talk to them about it, I highly doubt they'd know it was a video game.

Plenty of people outside gaming have certainly heard of Call of Duty, if not the Modern Warfare series specifically.

It's massive (unfortunately). Once you get beyond a certain age bracket then the awareness is going to start to dwindle, but Call of Duty has reached the stratosphere occupied by 'Nintendos' and Grand Theft Auto in terms of public awareness.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

My initial reaction was a deep, hearty laugh from the nether-regions of my throat.

The second? A facepalm.

Also of note: 'a "first-person-shooter called Modern Warfare'. Because no one's fucking heard of that, amirite?

Your average person? They wouldn't have heard of it. It's easy to be consumed by your chosen community, but, outside of gaming, not many people at all would recognize Modern Warfare. If you live with people who don't game, ask them what Modern Warfare is. Unless you actively talk to them about it, I highly doubt they'd know it was a video game.

Plenty of people outside gaming have certainly heard of Call of Duty, if not the Modern Warfare series specifically.

Plenty, perhaps. But it would be remiss of a report to simply state the name of a video game and not provide context. I've no doubt at all the majority of people reading the paper would see the name and have no clue what it was until it was explained. It would be no different than saying, for example, "the woman likes Hannibal". Without adding "a novel detailing the life of a cannibal, you could easily confuse a large portion of your audience. In the case of Modern Warfare, even though seemingly a proper noun, it is also reasonable to expect some to take the name to mean literally modern combat.

They had no reason not to and plenty to.

 

[Vrach]

World of Warcraft's ESRB rating​

It says so on the sticker, it must be true. Of course it's violent. But there's different degrees of violent content and if your reading skills went past the face value of what's written, you'd understand why people are making fun of them and dismissing their credibility (that they've lost with way, WAY more than just this argument)

I'm not sure why you felt the need to insult me, but it's not much cared for and did nothing to help your point.

I was simply commenting on the absurdity of discrediting, mocking and outright refusing to read an article based on, and I'll give you an exact quote here, "played the violent computer game World of Warcraft." The game is violent and that is all that was said. The title of this thread is sensationalist and pure knee-jerk in response, as nowhere in the entire article was the video game, or any other, blamed for the shootings.

Some people here simply jump the gun the gun whenever violence is mentioned and assume the other party is calling the game the son of Satan. As you said, there are many forms of violence and many degrees of violence. World of Warcraft happens to contain a degree. That is all that was said or inferred.

Perhaps it was you who didn't look beyond the surface.

Wasn't really an insult, just a dismissal of your argument parallel to your dismissal of everyone else's based on a faulty one of your own. The title of this thread is not sensationalist, it merely draws a very logical conclusion that the article it cites expects their viewer to draw.

You don't have to say something outright for it to be something you said, it's exactly what I meant with my "read between the lines" 'insult'. It's very obvious from the article what reaction they were going for and this thread is reacting to just that.

Actually, the prosecution is arguing the gunmen is legally insane and not that video games had anything to do with it. They argue he suffers a form of psychosis that renders him unable to determine the difference between fantasy and reality, causing him to not fully appreciate his crimes. The video game was mentioned as evidence of the man's extreme isolation (he openly admits he used the digital world to escape contact with others). When the time came for him to commit the murders, the prosecution is arguing he was not totally aware of the consequences.

Again, the gamers that are giving in to knee-jerk emotion and of whom are commenting before understanding or even reading the actual story, are the ones causing the problem. This thread is part of that problem, even; it is a blatant grab for attention on a gaming site and purely sensationalist. A violent video game was mentioned, not in causality, but in correlation and some gamers erupted into a frenzy of ignorance.

I'm not arguing the prosecution (there's stuff to argue there as well, but I haven't the time nor the interest), I'm arguing the article. Read it. Just read it, again if you need to. If you don't get what I mean by what I said previously still, I won't waste any more time trying to explain, as one glance at the article, let alone a read-through makes it very obvious what it's trying to paint as a picture for its audience.

You've yet to actually show any evidence for your claims, let alone enough to warrant your smug attitude. All you've offered is your belief that the article is preaching the violent video games cause violence message, but you've yet to show where or how. Conjecture and blanket statements wont make your argument for you.

Again, if you can't see it by now, I won't bother trying to explain it, it's like trying to tell someone the sky is blue when they're telling you you don't have any proof for it. If you can't be arsed to look or honestly can't see what I'm talking about, never mind.

 

[Woodsey]

My initial reaction was a deep, hearty laugh from the nether-regions of my throat.

The second? A facepalm.

Also of note: 'a "first-person-shooter called Modern Warfare'. Because no one's fucking heard of that, amirite?

Your average person? They wouldn't have heard of it. It's easy to be consumed by your chosen community, but, outside of gaming, not many people at all would recognize Modern Warfare. If you live with people who don't game, ask them what Modern Warfare is. Unless you actively talk to them about it, I highly doubt they'd know it was a video game.

Plenty of people outside gaming have certainly heard of Call of Duty, if not the Modern Warfare series specifically.

Plenty, perhaps. But it would be remiss of a report to simply state the name of a video game and not provide context. I've no doubt at all the majority of people reading the paper would see the name and have no clue what it was until it was explained. It would be no different than saying, for example, "the woman likes Hannibal". Without adding "a novel detailing the life of a cannibal, you could easily confuse a large portion of your audience. In the case of Modern Warfare, even though seemingly a proper noun, it is also reasonable to expect some to take the name to mean literally modern combat.

They had no reason not to and plenty to.

I was more making the point that it's written as if the author is coming from complete ignorance; not that it should go without explanation.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

World of Warcraft's ESRB rating​

It says so on the sticker, it must be true. Of course it's violent. But there's different degrees of violent content and if your reading skills went past the face value of what's written, you'd understand why people are making fun of them and dismissing their credibility (that they've lost with way, WAY more than just this argument)

I'm not sure why you felt the need to insult me, but it's not much cared for and did nothing to help your point.

I was simply commenting on the absurdity of discrediting, mocking and outright refusing to read an article based on, and I'll give you an exact quote here, "played the violent computer game World of Warcraft." The game is violent and that is all that was said. The title of this thread is sensationalist and pure knee-jerk in response, as nowhere in the entire article was the video game, or any other, blamed for the shootings.

Some people here simply jump the gun the gun whenever violence is mentioned and assume the other party is calling the game the son of Satan. As you said, there are many forms of violence and many degrees of violence. World of Warcraft happens to contain a degree. That is all that was said or inferred.

Perhaps it was you who didn't look beyond the surface.

Wasn't really an insult, just a dismissal of your argument parallel to your dismissal of everyone else's based on a faulty one of your own. The title of this thread is not sensationalist, it merely draws a very logical conclusion that the article it cites expects their viewer to draw.

You don't have to say something outright for it to be something you said, it's exactly what I meant with my "read between the lines" 'insult'. It's very obvious from the article what reaction they were going for and this thread is reacting to just that.

Actually, the prosecution is arguing the gunmen is legally insane and not that video games had anything to do with it. They argue he suffers a form of psychosis that renders him unable to determine the difference between fantasy and reality, causing him to not fully appreciate his crimes. The video game was mentioned as evidence of the man's extreme isolation (he openly admits he used the digital world to escape contact with others). When the time came for him to commit the murders, the prosecution is arguing he was not totally aware of the consequences.

Again, the gamers that are giving in to knee-jerk emotion and of whom are commenting before understanding or even reading the actual story, are the ones causing the problem. This thread is part of that problem, even; it is a blatant grab for attention on a gaming site and purely sensationalist. A violent video game was mentioned, not in causality, but in correlation and some gamers erupted into a frenzy of ignorance.

I'm not arguing the prosecution (there's stuff to argue there as well, but I haven't the time nor the interest), I'm arguing the article. Read it. Just read it, again if you need to. If you don't get what I mean by what I said previously still, I won't waste any more time trying to explain, as one glance at the article, let alone a read-through makes it very obvious what it's trying to paint as a picture for its audience.

You've yet to actually show any evidence for your claims, let alone enough to warrant your smug attitude. All you've offered is your belief that the article is preaching the violent video games cause violence message, but you've yet to show where or how. Conjecture and blanket statements wont make your argument for you.

Again, if you can't see it by now, I won't bother trying to explain it, it's like trying to tell someone the sky is blue when they're telling you you don't have any proof for it. If you can't be arsed to look or honestly can't see what I'm talking about, never mind.

Again, your attitude is childish and you're choosing to act offensively for it's own sake. If you do not wish to provide actual evidence for your claims, fine. But do not simply state an opinion without any and then become become snappy when questioned. I was attempting to have an adult conversation with you, but you've continually used ad-hominem attacks to mock me and my stand-point.

I suggest you think about the way you engage in expressing your opinions before doing so in the future.

 

[Lunatic High]

huh another one of these eh, pretty sure they said Doom was responsible for columbine back when that happend also Maralyn Manson. That defense seems pretty wide eyed stupid to me. But hey if they ever make a video game that physically makes you go on a very successful shooting spree I'd probly try it.

Whats also funny is they seem more concerned about WoW than Modern Warfare lol

 

[Clearing the Eye]

My initial reaction was a deep, hearty laugh from the nether-regions of my throat.

The second? A facepalm.

Also of note: 'a "first-person-shooter called Modern Warfare'. Because no one's fucking heard of that, amirite?

Your average person? They wouldn't have heard of it. It's easy to be consumed by your chosen community, but, outside of gaming, not many people at all would recognize Modern Warfare. If you live with people who don't game, ask them what Modern Warfare is. Unless you actively talk to them about it, I highly doubt they'd know it was a video game.

Plenty of people outside gaming have certainly heard of Call of Duty, if not the Modern Warfare series specifically.

Plenty, perhaps. But it would be remiss of a report to simply state the name of a video game and not provide context. I've no doubt at all the majority of people reading the paper would see the name and have no clue what it was until it was explained. It would be no different than saying, for example, "the woman likes Hannibal". Without adding "a novel detailing the life of a cannibal, you could easily confuse a large portion of your audience. In the case of Modern Warfare, even though seemingly a proper noun, it is also reasonable to expect some to take the name to mean literally modern combat.

They had no reason not to and plenty to.

I was more making the point that it's written as if the author is coming from complete ignorance; not that it should go without explanation.

You have to assume ignorance when authoring such a report (I've experience) for the reasons we've just discussed. Within reason, you really have to always assume any reference you make will not be understood, especially to things such as a video game that is still not widely reported on or where the general public couldn't be expected to know particulars.

Don't get me wrong, the line seemed clunky and awkward to me as well. But it has to be there.

 

[Woodsey]

Don't get me wrong, the line seemed clunky and awkward to me as well. But it has to be there.

Which is what I was talking about. I don't need schooling.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Don't get me wrong, the line seemed clunky and awkward to me as well. But it has to be there.

Which is what I was talking about. I don't need schooling.

Oh. Well I'm not really sure why you aggressively commented on a line that you knew was needed. Seems pedantic or redundant, even.

 

[Unsung]

So let me get this straight: you're a prosecutor, handed a home run case of a mass murderer, and THIS is the evidence you lay out?

Give me a fucking break.

 

[mooncalf]

He's an evil dick, and you can't learn that in a videogame, you just can't.... Maybe DayZ.

 

[dogenzakaminion]

The prosecutors nor the article blame WoW for his killing spree...

The article states the facts, how much he played and so on, and that an expert witness claimed he had trouble separating the game from reality. This all came from the prosecutors. No where does it say they blame the killings on Wow.

I don't think the issue lies with the factor of them blaming the game. More so, it has to do with the fact that, in a case where a man went on a major killing spree, his private love of video games is somehow more relevant than the facts of how he did it, where the weapons were obtained, who was affected, and so on. This wasn't a small case, not by a long shot, so why was WoW one of the biggest topics here? It has no right to be here, honestly. Maybe if it were mentioned as a side note, yea, but not as the primary topic. The things that should be focused on here are the actual case, and since the game is such a flushed out topic in the issue, it is plain to tell that someone is placing blame upon it.

The whole thing is preposterous anyway, he killed so many and they speak of his gaming addiction? I think there just might be a BIT more relevant information for them to be looking into. Just a hunch.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on this. Bringing up the gaming addiction in a case that is about something else isn't really doing the gaming community any favors in terms of PR, but I just think it's very easy for said gaming community to get overly mad and defensive when anyone mentions gaming in a negative light. This also isn't very good self PR.

Also, being a Norwegian living in Norway I can testify to the fact that no one here is talking about it, other than on the factual level that he did in fact play "..." game for "..." hours each day. It should be included in the case at large but it is not a big thing. This seems like ABC simply saying "Yeah this is some of what the prosecutors said" and it happened to be about gaming.

 

[dogenzakaminion]

The prosecutors nor the article blame WoW for his killing spree...

Unfortunately, that argument would ignore the basic context of the article itself.

The very phrase "the violent computer game World of Warcraft" presents it as a given that WoW is inherently violent --- why not "the lushly-rendered cartoonlike computer game World of Warcraft"? Because, in the context of the article, that would be uselessly unrelated. We are told that WoW is "violent" because, in the view of the author of the article, it is relevant to the article itself.

The whole point of bringing up the link between Breivik and WoW is intended as an argument for his insanity. If the only concern is to establish that he had developed an unhealthy obsession for something which, itself, contributed nothing to his madness, there would be no reason to label the game as "violent". You would need only to note the obsession.

But then we would be arguing semantics and interpretation of a third party which isn't present.

The author might think WoW is violent, he might not have experience with games and to him WoW is a gore fest with scary monsters. Maybe he just needed an adjective and he's a bad reporter. I also don't read this is a very emotionally loaded article and I certainly don't see it as an article trying to establish Breiviks insanity. Everything is suffixed with "the prosecutors said" or something similar. This honestly seems to me like the author writing "this is what the prosecutors said" without putting spin on it.

 

[Altorin]

Makes just as much sense to accuse this

Spoiler

of influencing him to kill.

or this

Spoiler

 

[Calbeck]

The prosecutors nor the article blame WoW for his killing spree...

Unfortunately, that argument would ignore the basic context of the article itself.

But then we would be arguing semantics and interpretation of a third party which isn't present.

Sorry, but the phrase "violent computer game World of Warcraft" has no other function in the article. There's nothing semantic here to argue at all.

 

[tzimize]

Anders Breivik, the right-wing extremist who has confessed to killing 77 people during a murder spree in Norway last summer, played the violent computer game World of Warcraft nearly seven hours a day for several consecutive months before his attack, prosecutors say.

This one from ABC News, folks.

http://news.yahoo.com/prosecutors-killer-played-world-warcraft-7-hours-per-202755037--abc-news-topstories.html

CAPTCHA: "pandora's box"

Stupid headline op as it implies way too much what is certainly not the case.

Read up on the case, and dont write sensationalist misleading headlines. Leave that to the tabloids.