SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Maybe there doesnt seem to be one from your standpoint, but I can see people calling for that over here. Discussions on whether soccer matches should be held in front of a live audience, ever increasing numbers of police forces in stadiums, separating hooligans from families, debates on hooliganism, debates on the ban of fireworks in stadiums...
The difference is this fucking website will run an article on every cockroach that talks about video games while no one reports on problems in the soccer world.
Yet I bet the vast majority of that conversation focuses on the "hooligans", not on soccer itself.
Sports get all tied up with nationality and local image, encouraging people to identify with players and see them as larger-than-life, as "heroes". The commercial aspects of the games very much depend on this- on season ticket-holders, on people who dress in the colors and hang banners in their windows, people who make the advertisements played during the games attractive space to advertisers.
I admit, I can't speak with absolute certainty about soccer overseas. But over here, there are regular stories about the owners of sports teams demanding costly new stadiums, facilities, and every kind of concession from the cities they call home- and frequently getting them. Because the games are a non-trivial part of local economies, and because the attitudes people evidence towards their home teams often make those games all but sacrosanct.
One could argue that there's a case to be made that certain team sports encourage aggression- perhaps even more than violent video games, because the sense of community, rather than holding fans to a higher standard, creates an atmosphere that enables violent behavior, creates a new norm in which such actions are viewed as acceptable.
I would not necessarily
make such a case. But I wouldn't suggest such a claim was less compelling than the one that video games beget violence. The comparison- or lack thereof- has far less to do with the credibility of one over the other and far more to do with the aggressive nature of sports being held to a different standard, with sports being considered a regular and acceptable part of daily life, a healthy activity for young people to excel in and a reasonable means of venting aggression.
His argument is a lot less ridiculous than yours. (And thats saying something!) Linking shooting people to a video game in which you shoot people is an obvious connection to make, if an incorrect one. Linking a video game in which you kick a ball around to what happens 4 hours after people kicked a ball around in the real world is much further out there.
Sorry if I am having a bit of a go at you here, I am just sick to death of hearing this stupid "99% of serial killers eat bread, ban bread!" argument.
I understand where you're coming from; suffice it to say I disagree about the relative ridiculousness of the cases. Perhaps more to the point, without such comparisons it may prove difficult for someone who doesn't appreciate video games to understand why the connection being made between the two is inappropriate. So-called "common sense" connections, as applied to hot-button topics, are wrong with remarkable frequency.
