parents pushing the blame for being crappy parents onto video games.
yup. always looking to blame something else.
hell I should be the absolute devils child. listening to 'heavy metal', death, and grindcore, playing violent video games 'kill simulators', and yet I'm not. I'm an upstanding citizen. fancy that.
Yea Dejawolf, Penn and Teller like getting idiots to help show the side they're against as idiots. Who the hell would've bothered listening to some idiot passing out pamplets with no proper knowledge of the effects of violent videogames? They spent a large portion of the show talking to a guy who obviously doesn't know jack shit about how video games affect the minds of children.
On top of that, as some pointed out, the part with the kid firing the rifle was ridiculous, I thought he was about to get hit in the throat the way he was horribly holding that rifle, of course he didn't want to fire again.
While I agree that Penn & Teller are entertainers and not philosophers/scientists I think the point that they were illustrating is that the public figures representing the fight against violent video games ARE idiots, and there is no real legitimate voice out there.
Your assuming that there is, but having spent years following the issue and looking for one I never found one.
It seams to have its origins in conservative/religious extremist groups, and was then picked up on by the media who then started spreading the idea among those willing to accept it at face value.
In fact the only rational SOUNDING voice that has ever really been heard on the issue is the news media itself. The entire concept is simply a media created fear mongering machine that has been slowly turned into a social issue.
If you take one look at the facts it falls apart, but that wont stop politicians and the media from exploiting peoples fears (rational or otherwise). It just makes for good news and politics, but it's horrible science.
I'd love to see Hillary Clinton or Joe Leiberman interviewed about this subject, they repeatedly have press statements about how videogame violence is destroying youth, I want to see them dumbfounded and struggling to answer. I want to see major politicians and 'experts' they call upon to really discuss the issue. The people that have the most power or the most credentials that are against violent videogames are the ones that need to be put in their place.
I guess its the inner debater inside me that just gets irked by Penn & Teller's mockery of serious issues and their failure to scratch the surface. It's a funny show, but fact finders they are not, they slant the show like its a 30 minute Michael Moore documentary.
I actually listened to an interview awhile ago with Penn where he was confronted about the very issue that you were bringing up about the lack of balance seriousness int he show and he said something to this extent...
We are entertainers, our background is in stage magic and performances. If you want a hardcore documentary then you should look elsewhere. Hopefully we can excite people enough to make them want to look and see if what we are posing is factual and legitimate. Our goal is to bring issues to the table and call out bullshitters. However, hopefully those watching know what their getting when they tune in. The show is called "Bullshit" after all. It's not like we are pretending to be front line.
That is by no means a quote (Penn usually more concise and precise than that), but that's basically what he said in response.
I'm not advocating one way or the other I just thought you might find that interesting.
Firebert: No no a pistol would be bad for a totally untrained shooter. Much more chance of the kid getting hit in the face with the barrel, or hurting his hand, etc. At least with a rifle the more fleshy bits of the body can take the recoil if you don't cradle it right..
just look up the evidence penn and teller uses.
they say crime rates has gone down. i checked the crime stats, its correct. crime is down.
But see, thats the same reasoning the other side used. Taking one item of context to equal the whole. (IE
violence in school observed , violent games at home
therefore violent games caused the event.
crime rate lowered, violent games at home
therefore violent games not cause of event.
They both are flawed as they do not have enough data to make such a jump. There are multiple reasons for lower crime of teens.
So, I agree with Ebagg on this. I love the show, but you have to take in context. That and I am on the G4Change social games listserv, which has some pretty damn intensive discussions about media violence and desensitization. Both ways, even by some doing the research since there seem to be many higher education educators on it.
They already have gotten shot in the foot for the recycling episode and second hand smoke.
With the upcoming organic food episode. I'm fully expecting them to focus in part, on the FDA clauses that destroyed much of true organic to appease the larger companies. Without talking about separate organic certification groups like Oregan Tilf whom existed before and still do to this day.
It's one thing to deconstruct an idiot's argument by presenting his own shit as being incongruent, etc... And i suppose that's FINNNEEE....
in my opinion, it's important to find something healthy -- not just to invalidate shallow arguments.
Your idealism is commendable. But there is very little room in modern media for this manner of approach. Penn and Teller's show is not there to educate, or push an agenda. (You'll notice that they mocked gamers as well as the anti-gaming crowd) The function of their program is to entertain, and they focus exclusively on that.
In the realm of rhetoric, the easiest way to win an argument isn't to prove that you are right, but to prove that the other side is wrong. Deconstructing and invalidating your opponent's arguments is an effective form of persuasion. Attempting to come up with a viable alternative is a lot more work, and it opens you up to the same tactics that you just utilized.
Penn and Teller are not humanitarians, they are entertainers. They have no moral highground to preach from. Would you really go to them for this manner of advice?
They both are flawed as they do not have enough data to make such a jump. There are multiple reasons for lower crime of teens.
The truth of the matter is that violent crimes by children have been perfectly common for many years. We are only hearing more about them recently thanks to the internet. These manner of crimes used to be considered too small for national news, and were usually only reported on locally. Communities wouldn't want this sort of news reported across the world, it would be an embarrassment. The growing digitalization of news makes everything fair game. So we now hear about every incident.
And the sad thing is, these incidents are always a product of individual experiences. There is never any one cause. Each case is the result of the collected experiences of the responsible party.
Richard -- that's a great point, but I think that it's reasonable to argue otherwise. P&T are in a position to have a massive influence on culture at large, and one could argue that they have a certain responsibility to recognize that fact and be moral... but I suppose there's something to be said for the majority of people being idiotic.
ebagg and jocose -- I guess in that sense maybe you both have a point. I do get pissed off when I hear a completely irrational argument buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuutttttt maybe it's worth saying that you don't bother and make rational arguments to irrational people.
maybe know who you're talking to then.. but man, it certainly would get P&T a lot more credibility if their arguments appealed to rational people as well.
P&T are in a position to have a massive influence on culture at large, and one could argue that they have a certain responsibility to recognize that fact and be moral... but I suppose there's something to be said for the majority of people being idiotic.
Are they really, though? Their show "Bullshit" is broadcast on Showtime. So the only people who regularly watch that show...
1. Subscribe to a cable service. (since Showtime is a cable network)
2. Subscribe to Showtime. (Showtime doesn't come free with most cable packages)
3. Download television illegally from the internet.
I'm imagining that many gamers acquired their viewing of this episode through torrents or YouTube. And their minds on this subject were most likely already made up. Most people who could be swayed by the arguments put forth on "Bullshit" fall into the minority of people who regulalry watch television. Given the shows fairly limited distribution, I don't think it fair to credit P&T as having "massive influence on culture at large."
If Penn & Teller actually focused on evenhanded philosophical debate rather than entertainment, nobody would watch their show and their wonderful platform for influencing public opinion would be pulled out right from under them.
You know, something tells me that if Football were invented 100 years after videogames the way it was originally invented the reaction would be different.
it's just like the whole pmrc crackdown in the 80's over violent and sexual themes in music. Frank Zappa had a great quote in an interview to the effect of "since the majority of the songs on the radio are about love, then by your logic there should be far more love in the world."
Replies
yup. always looking to blame something else.
hell I should be the absolute devils child. listening to 'heavy metal', death, and grindcore, playing violent video games 'kill simulators', and yet I'm not. I'm an upstanding citizen. fancy that.
On top of that, as some pointed out, the part with the kid firing the rifle was ridiculous, I thought he was about to get hit in the throat the way he was horribly holding that rifle, of course he didn't want to fire again.
Your assuming that there is, but having spent years following the issue and looking for one I never found one.
It seams to have its origins in conservative/religious extremist groups, and was then picked up on by the media who then started spreading the idea among those willing to accept it at face value.
In fact the only rational SOUNDING voice that has ever really been heard on the issue is the news media itself. The entire concept is simply a media created fear mongering machine that has been slowly turned into a social issue.
If you take one look at the facts it falls apart, but that wont stop politicians and the media from exploiting peoples fears (rational or otherwise). It just makes for good news and politics, but it's horrible science.
I guess its the inner debater inside me that just gets irked by Penn & Teller's mockery of serious issues and their failure to scratch the surface. It's a funny show, but fact finders they are not, they slant the show like its a 30 minute Michael Moore documentary.
We are entertainers, our background is in stage magic and performances. If you want a hardcore documentary then you should look elsewhere. Hopefully we can excite people enough to make them want to look and see if what we are posing is factual and legitimate. Our goal is to bring issues to the table and call out bullshitters. However, hopefully those watching know what their getting when they tune in. The show is called "Bullshit" after all. It's not like we are pretending to be front line.
That is by no means a quote (Penn usually more concise and precise than that), but that's basically what he said in response.
I'm not advocating one way or the other I just thought you might find that interesting.
But see, thats the same reasoning the other side used. Taking one item of context to equal the whole. (IE
violence in school observed , violent games at home
therefore violent games caused the event.
crime rate lowered, violent games at home
therefore violent games not cause of event.
They both are flawed as they do not have enough data to make such a jump. There are multiple reasons for lower crime of teens.
So, I agree with Ebagg on this. I love the show, but you have to take in context. That and I am on the G4Change social games listserv, which has some pretty damn intensive discussions about media violence and desensitization. Both ways, even by some doing the research since there seem to be many higher education educators on it.
They already have gotten shot in the foot for the recycling episode and second hand smoke.
With the upcoming organic food episode. I'm fully expecting them to focus in part, on the FDA clauses that destroyed much of true organic to appease the larger companies. Without talking about separate organic certification groups like Oregan Tilf whom existed before and still do to this day.
Your idealism is commendable. But there is very little room in modern media for this manner of approach. Penn and Teller's show is not there to educate, or push an agenda. (You'll notice that they mocked gamers as well as the anti-gaming crowd) The function of their program is to entertain, and they focus exclusively on that.
In the realm of rhetoric, the easiest way to win an argument isn't to prove that you are right, but to prove that the other side is wrong. Deconstructing and invalidating your opponent's arguments is an effective form of persuasion. Attempting to come up with a viable alternative is a lot more work, and it opens you up to the same tactics that you just utilized.
Penn and Teller are not humanitarians, they are entertainers. They have no moral highground to preach from. Would you really go to them for this manner of advice?
The truth of the matter is that violent crimes by children have been perfectly common for many years. We are only hearing more about them recently thanks to the internet. These manner of crimes used to be considered too small for national news, and were usually only reported on locally. Communities wouldn't want this sort of news reported across the world, it would be an embarrassment. The growing digitalization of news makes everything fair game. So we now hear about every incident.
And the sad thing is, these incidents are always a product of individual experiences. There is never any one cause. Each case is the result of the collected experiences of the responsible party.
ebagg and jocose -- I guess in that sense maybe you both have a point. I do get pissed off when I hear a completely irrational argument buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuutttttt maybe it's worth saying that you don't bother and make rational arguments to irrational people.
maybe know who you're talking to then.. but man, it certainly would get P&T a lot more credibility if their arguments appealed to rational people as well.
Are they really, though? Their show "Bullshit" is broadcast on Showtime. So the only people who regularly watch that show...
1. Subscribe to a cable service. (since Showtime is a cable network)
2. Subscribe to Showtime. (Showtime doesn't come free with most cable packages)
3. Download television illegally from the internet.
I'm imagining that many gamers acquired their viewing of this episode through torrents or YouTube. And their minds on this subject were most likely already made up. Most people who could be swayed by the arguments put forth on "Bullshit" fall into the minority of people who regulalry watch television. Given the shows fairly limited distribution, I don't think it fair to credit P&T as having "massive influence on culture at large."
i'm not trying to prove that violent video games decreases crime rates, i'm trying to disprove that they cause higher crime rates.
http://www.screwattack.com/SGC2009/Debate