The Big Picture: On The Subject Of Violence

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

A well made point, Bob, and you actually voiced what is essentially my take on the whole matter: "You cannot predict the actions of a made-man."

My view is that we shouldn't be looking for anyone/anything to blame for horrible events like what happened in Aurora. The simple fact of the matter is that there are BAD people out there that are going to do BAD things. Who's to blame for those BAD things? Well it's the BAD people that do them. It isn't the gun the bad person used. It isn't the music the bad person listened to. It isn't the movies or games the bad person watched or played. If those things were truly to blame, then we'd have events like this happening all the time.

No, it comes from a person with a twisted view on reality/the world. They can say that a certain book or game or song inspired them, but guess what: countless other people read that book, played that game, and watched that movie and they certainly didn't feel inspired to go on a murderous rampage. So what does that tell us? The person who committed the heinous act is to blame, NOT what he or she was watching/playing/listening to.

We seem to understand this when dealing with some tragedies and forget it when dealing with others. What outside influence caused 9/11? I don't recall hearing about any books or movies or such getting blamed. Why? Because we knew what 9/11 was: a terrorist attack. It was caused by terrorists with the express purpose of spreading terror. We didn't need to ask Al Qeada (spelling) what music they were listening to or what movie inspired them, we already knew what motivates them: they have a beef with western civilization.

Sooooooo why do we immediately think that something like Aurora, which equates to domestic terrorism, couldn't possibly have been committed by someone who wasn't inspired/"told" to do it by some outside source? The message being sent is that AQ is squarely to blame for a terrorist attack yet a home-grown mass murderer isn't to blame for his own attack. No, it was the movies or games that made him do it. Give me a break...

Thank you Bob, for putting down what I have been feeling but could not find the right words to express it with.

Goooooood stuff Bob. I can't find that gif of the guy doing the slow clap but if I could i'd totally post it here. 10/10

I ask Bob and this thread, do you think it's time for America to introduce more strict levels of gun control? Please support your answers with debatable responses. We should get the conversation going.

bdcjacko:

Kargathia:

bdcjacko:

He would have found a way to get guns anyhow. I mean he rigged his apartment to blow. He seems like he knew how to get things.

The Netherlands have some very tight gun laws as well, and they also had a home-grown mass murder shootout last year.
I'm not saying that gun control won't cut down on the total amount of violence happening - in fact I'd say it will - but it won't provide a golden bullet to prevent madmen going off on a rampage.

Exactly, in a case like this, gun control means nothing. But big picture (no pun intended) gun control would decrease the amount of gun violence. In the case of some crazy guy that is dedicated to shooting up a movie, he is going to find the guns.

Yeah, there's really no way of stopping people like this. Our society has 300 million people, it's statistically inevitable. We live in huge metropolitan cities with no sense of community. No one knows his/her neighbor. People like this easily slip through the cracks.

People seem to forget that the Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people. If you want to stop horrific things like that we should be focused on fertilizer, not guns. Bombs are a lot more deadly, much easier to make, and much harder to trace than guns.

Oh, and gun control really only helps to prevent crimes of passion through the waiting period. Other than that it just acts as an obstacle. It would only stop a crazy person if the person in question was just going to do it on a whim and couldn't be bothered with the extra hassle of getting guns illegally. Frankly, I'm pretty sure the decision to shoot up a place requires quite a bit of commitment, and I rather doubt that these people will just give up and not go on to try to get their guns illegally. Especially because it isn't terribly difficult.

Here's how you buy illegal guns:

[Note: I am merely stating this for the sake of argument. I have never solicited any illegal services from anyone, nor am I in possession of any illegal firearms. This is a crime, DO NOT DO IT!]

Step 1) talk to some people who look like they smoke weed and find a drug dealer.

Step 2) ask the drug dealer for stronger stuff, if he just sells weed then he will refer you to his supplier who sells other stuff; heroin, etc. This person is the one you want to talk to.

Step 3) create a relationship with this person, possibly by using drugs in front of them. Once you've proven that you aren't a cop you can ask them if they know anyone with some unlicensed guns. If they don't sell guns, they'll refer you to someone who does.

Yes, it takes a bit longer, but it's hardly rocket science. It shouldn't be very hard to get an AK-47 using this method, though you will probably have to buy some handguns first. The worst part about this is that these guns are untraceable.

New gun control laws just make it a hassle for ordinary citizens. If we could just enforce the laws we already have we could cut way down on gun violence. The majority of gun violence in America is gang related, and they don't use legal guns. They get their guns from the cartels just like their drugs. Stopping illegal guns would take the exact same things as stopping the flow of illegal drugs. We'd have to completely shut down the border.

But not even that would be enough, there are just too many illegal guns on the street already. The only way to fully stop gun violence would be to have a giant police crackdown where we temporarily suspend some civil liberties so that police can search and arrest people without warrants and gather up all the guns. And no, I'm not an NRA conspiracy theorist. I'm simply stating a fact. That's what you would need to do in order to get all the guns off of the street. The American people aren't willing to do that, so it isn't going to happen. Sorry gun-control advocates.

However, I'm not against common sense regulations. Clearly assault rifles and automatic weapons should require special permits and thorough background checks. What we should really have in place are monitoring systems that put up red flags that the ATF and FBI can follow up on. If this nutjob simply couldn't buy his guns legally then he would have gone off the grid and bought illegal guns. I sincerely doubt that he would have completely given up on his plan because of a little extra hassle. But if the proper monitoring systems and regulations were in place, someone could have looked into his purchases and perhaps the FBI could have stopped him in time.

OK. First of all: Great monologue about art at the end there. Best part of the video. But I feel like a lot of you are missing a MASSIVE flaw in this video, and I really need to speak up about it:

Why the FUCK do you think it's OK to demonize the mentally unstable like that? Calling them "sub-humans"....Are you fucking kidding? They are NOT just normal people who happen to enjoy causing pain and suffering, THERE IS SOMETHING PHYSICALLY WRONG WITH THEM THAT IS BEYOND THEIR CONTROL. What the FLYING HELL is so hard for people to understand about that? You don't blame a mentally retarded person for not learning as quickly as a mentally healthy person, and you don't blame a crazy person for well...BEING CRAZY. And by the way, the demonization of the mentally unstable is a HUGE part of why it's difficult for them to seek, much less receive, any kind of assistance. Referring to them as "sub-humans" would be right at home in the 1800s, but in this day and age it's FUCKING DEPLORABLE.

Now, obviously a big part of this guy's trial will be about determining if he can still tell right from wrong. If it turns out he can and did what he did anyway, then I guess I'll shut up. But packing all mentally unstable people in with him is...well, frankly Bob, it's pretty disgusting.

Man, I wish I knew Bob in real life. That piece was epic, and I totally agree with him. In fact, this is a much more soundly-worded version of how I think about the subject of censorship.

ReiverCorrupter:
[quote="bdcjacko" post="6.383698.15190492"]

Here's how you buy illegal guns:

[Note: I am merely stating this for the sake of argument. I have never solicited any illegal services from anyone, nor am I in possession of any illegal firearms. This is a crime, DO NOT DO IT!]

Step 1) talk to some people who look like they smoke weed and find a drug dealer.

Step 2) ask the drug dealer for stronger stuff, if he just sells weed then he will refer you to his supplier who sells other stuff; heroin, etc. This person is the one you want to talk to.

Step 3) create a relationship with this person, possibly by using drugs in front of them. Once you've proven that you aren't a cop you can ask them if they know anyone with some unlicensed guns. If they don't sell guns, they'll refer you to someone who does.

Yes, it takes a bit longer, but it's hardly rocket science. It shouldn't be very hard to get an AK-47 using this method, though you will probably have to buy some handguns first. The worst part about this is that these guns are untraceable.

Or...you know, just go to Texas or some such place and loot anyone's house who looks like they may hunt...(you'll probly get mostly shotguns though) OR go to shooting range and hang out until you come across someone with a good collection, follow them home, wait till they go to work, take their guns... exc.

It is important to also realize that making something illegal or "sinful/shameful" does not stop it from happening. This only results in those who want it going underground and forces them to become criminals.

Prohibition

Abortion

Teen Sex

Prostitution

Drugs

The Mexican/American border dispute

Gold Farming in MMOs

and others I can't think of right now. Maybe we will find out about the shooters background and discover he has massive issues with some sort of repressions that finally exploded into a violent crime. In which case pulling back censorship would be the logical solution. Not making media more censored.

You can't be proactive with crazy, it makes us all criminals. Also film/games/arts can make you do it the bible and religion sure as hell can as well, so lets ban everything!

Thank you for making this, Bob

notbeing mean

>100 rebel syreians die, according to plan

>school shooting, its some ones fault

everything is the fault of something, media is just byas, i guess. I dunno

Crazies will be crazies. If you want to be 100% insulated from them you have to live your life under a freakin' rock.

Also it isn't fair to use an exception to define the rule. Millions saw The Dark Knight, 1 person went insane and shot up a place saying he was inspired by the movie does not instantly mean The Dark Knight and by proxy violent movies are serial killer trainers.

It always irritates me that we love using the exception as the example to justify anything we want.

Katya Topolkaraeva:

ReiverCorrupter:
[quote="bdcjacko" post="6.383698.15190492"]

Here's how you buy illegal guns:

[Note: I am merely stating this for the sake of argument. I have never solicited any illegal services from anyone, nor am I in possession of any illegal firearms. This is a crime, DO NOT DO IT!]

Step 1) talk to some people who look like they smoke weed and find a drug dealer.

Step 2) ask the drug dealer for stronger stuff, if he just sells weed then he will refer you to his supplier who sells other stuff; heroin, etc. This person is the one you want to talk to.

Step 3) create a relationship with this person, possibly by using drugs in front of them. Once you've proven that you aren't a cop you can ask them if they know anyone with some unlicensed guns. If they don't sell guns, they'll refer you to someone who does.

Yes, it takes a bit longer, but it's hardly rocket science. It shouldn't be very hard to get an AK-47 using this method, though you will probably have to buy some handguns first. The worst part about this is that these guns are untraceable.

Or...you know, just go to Texas or some such place and loot anyone's house who looks like they may hunt...(you'll probly get mostly shotguns though) OR go to shooting range and hang out until you come across someone with a good collection, follow them home, wait till they go to work, take their guns... exc.

Well... the obvious downside to that method is that 1) breaking into people's houses in broad daylight is a good way to get caught, 2) if you do it at night these people are quite likely to shoot you, because, you know, they have guns.

Robbing people like that requires quite a bit of effort. You have to case their house, make sure they don't have a security system, make sure their guns aren't locked away in a strongbox (which they probably are), and make sure you don't leave any fingerprints (most of the CSI stuff is nonsense, but someone stealing guns is enough for them to dust for fingerprints). You have to repeat the entire process if they don't have the guns you want. Plus there's no telling how much ammo these people have. If you go buy the same ammo for the guns that people had stolen and you don't have any guns registered to you that require the same ammunition, the police will be on your ass like white on rice.

Not to mention the fact that they'll report the theft, and a stranger that shows up to the gun range right before someone had their house robbed of all its guns is probably going to garner attention. And those gun ranges have cameras. Once you've done it the first time people will be on their guard. Every time you repeat the process you'll have a greater chance of getting caught.

The method I prescribed above is probably a lot more efficient and a lot less likely to get you caught. Not that I'm recommending it. It's illegal and you shouldn't do it.

RJ Dalton:
As a schizophrenic, I feel I have to make this point, because the media is insistent on being fucktards about it.

The Colorado killer has not been officially diagnosed with anything. The media is already stamping labels on him like "schizoid" and "psychopath," using them as if they were catchall phrases for people who do bad things and completely ignoring not only the very specific context in which these terms are used in psychology, but how badly this misrepresents the vast majority of us who have mental disorders.
I'm Schizophrenic. Yes, I have delusions of persecution. Yes, I experience auditory and sometimes visual hallucinations. Yes, I am at times impulsive and irrationally over-emotional. But I have never in my life had any inclination to do something violent, nor do I have any desire to ever do so because I consider the use of violence to be abhorrent and would rather find any other means to resolve conflicts first.
We are not, as a rule, dangerous to society because we have identifiable symptoms of mental illness. Anyone - and I mean ANYONE - can go off the deep end if external circumstances effect them in the wrong ways and I am sick and tired of every killer being automatically labeled as "schizo" or "psychopathic" by a media which refuses to get its facts straight in favor of sensationalizing their stories.
And I'm disappointed in you, Bob, for using the term "psychopath" in the same way, no matter how much I think you have a point on every other issue you addressed in this video.
Please stop making people like me out to be naturally born bad guys.

I agree with this.

Bob also describes these people as 'subhuman' at one point and frankly that is pretty close to the very facist rethoric they themselves use.

Whatever someone might do they don't stop being human.

Hats off to you Bob! The internet needs a mind and voice like you.

The problematic thing is: thanks to "violent media", I know how to load, ready and fire a pistol although I will probably never in my life be allowed to own one.

Yet, I feel no desire to do so.

On another note: I have absolutely nothing to add to this video. It's just 100% true, and I rarely agree entirely with MovieBob.

DVS BSTrD:
That piece of shit wasn't inspired by the Joker at all, he just wants attention.

Yah I'm not sure because I've never heard anyone say that yet, just that he dyed his hair and called himself that. The Joker himself wouldn't have done such stuff, he was fascinating not because he was violent but because of his capacity to show that everyone else was as bad as he was. The only thing I've seen people try to tie into his insanity was a paintball poster and trying to pin it on that....

Id like to add something that Bob overlooked.

How many people didn't do something bad because they internalized a sense of justice from Batman? Someone at the shooting sacrificed their life to save their girlfriend: could him identifying with a hero have inspired heroics in him and others? Did another person risk their lives to become a policeman, firefighter or soldier because of these heroes who need a villain to be a hero? Probably not in any individual case, sure. And we don't question if a good deed was inspired by a work of artistic merit. But in the overall scheme of things I'm willing to bet that more invisible good has been done then very obvious bad. We know that authorial intent rarely involves advocating evil, so the idea that people are inspired to more evil then good by fiction seems absurd. Lets not damn Batman for the shooting that may, on an outside chance, have inspired this shooting tangentially. Lets celebrate the larger, unknowable number of people it saved.

While I generally agree with the vast majority of what Bob is saying, I'm increasingly disturbed by the characterization of violent disturbed madmen such as Brevik or the batman shooter as "monsters" and "subhuman," mainly because (a) the long historical connotations that such characterization has and (b) the dangerous assumption that all spree/mass killers must have some underlying mental defect. If you truly want to prevent and counter what causes such events as those two, you need to look into the mind of the perpetrator and see if you can understand their motivations and drives. If you can't, if you assume that only certain kinds of people are capable of such horrific acts, then you will most likely ignore the warning signs when you see it in people you know, or even in yourself.

It all seems pretty obvious to me. I mean, how much introspection did it require to reach the conclusion that it is rash to censor art for the sake of possible, yet dubious causal links"? I don't think there is a single viewer who hadn't already realised this on their own. You played it safe here Bob.

I'll admit I have a similar opinion. Not the same, per-say, but similar. I do believe that yes, it's possible for murder methods to be inspired by media. However, I use the term "murder method", not "murder" for a good reason: There has to be the intention. If the average person plays a game, they're not inspired to acts of violence because they have no intention to do anything of that kind. Sure, they know the method, but they have no intention. Which then leaves the question of "well, what if you remove all method-inspiring media?". The idea of being able to do that is deceptively simple. We are going beyond "let's remove action films". We are going into territory of preventing people from knowing about murder and acts of violence because of possible copy-cat behaviour. We are talking about removing books that may reference to acts of violence. There are countless ways the media, and other sources, may inform people how it's possible to murder. However, what can realistically be controlled, is the intention. You can realistically medicate or treat in a therapy setting people who seem to have an inclination of violence. You can realistically minimise bullying, not just peer-to-peer but also by authority figures and corporations (yes, I am saying that acts like corporations treating the consumer like dirt and exploiting them hard can act like bullying). You can realistically prevent anomie from occurring. That's what needs to happen personally, not the limitation of freedom to experience things based on a very small minority. Society will always have murder of different degrees, and it's time for people to accept it as a fact. Society also needs to know that to prevent negative behaviour it's a negotiation between its self and the individual who may commit half on the other, not a one way abusive relationship with threats and limitations. The relationship between the individual and society is a marriage, not a parenthood.

However, I am also under the belief that yes, while people have died while possibly (it's impossible to confirm since you can't change the pass) inspired by media, more people have lived thanks to it. There's a reason why in PAX it's pretty much staple for there to be a moment that people stand up and confess how they got through terrible times thanks to video games (and, somewhat, Penny Arcade, but without video games, and therefore media, you wouldn't have Penny Arcade). You have people who were very much alone and would of done something stupid (suicide or murder) or lived a significantly inferior quality life without this media. You want to get rid of violence of all kind from media? Go try for it. All those people who needed to play a game where they play a noble knight who saves the world for some feeling of achievement and meaning (I'm not saying they fill the entire gap, but you'd be surprised how much it can solidify an existing framework of meaning and achievement)? They're loss. Those people who after a hard day need something to unwind a let loose on something that will not matter? Well, they wouldn't have a FPS or a beat-them-up. Those people who needed something as captivating as a beautiful story in a visual format (and not just read) that is interactive? Well, their life has likely loss some feeling of meaning. I'm centralising on video-games because it's more current and more in the firing line, but there's also films. Those men who walk around with leather jackets and jeans? Without them, would they feel as good as they do? What about people who watched Jacob's Ladder and had a feeling of peace? Would they feel as peaceful and as happy without that film? Those people who watched a film like The Green Mile that may be perceived as violent? Would their lives be as complete without the depressing storyline that is The Green Mile?

I'm throwing a lot of rhetorical questions out because it's impossible to be certain of anything. However, to me, a world without violent media would be one of significantly less quality and it would kill a lot more physically and metaphorically than violent media ever will.

I guess it is important to reflect on actual issues within society to educate the internet masses. I think it all comes down to the fundamental freedom, the ability to choose. You have the choice to fill your mind with all the more violent media or to avoid it.

Thing is, if you did ban all violent movies, books and games etc. that wouldn't stop psychopaths.
They would/could draw inspiration from anything else. Stories said from one person to another, actions of others, current events etc. etc.
They could even draw inspiration from non-violent media. I'm sure some nut-case out there could and would draw inspiration from a cartoon for kids or anything else for that matter. I wouldn't put it beyond one of them to take inspiration from a dictionary.

And then last but not least. The holy scriptures of each and every religion out there.
They have inspired mass killings of almost unprecedented scope throughout history. So surely they would have to be banned too. It is a fact that people have and ARE using the holy scriptures as justification and source of inspiration for killing others.
I mean this isn't even speculation. This is just common knowledge.

So yeah, anything in the world can serve as inspiration for a madman. Even things which you can can't ban. If the next mass murderer blames his actions on the stars in the skies are we going to ban the universe?

Damn, Bob, you took the words right out of my mouth. Then you threw them out and used better ones.

The thing I usually say at these moments is that I believe violent media has made me a more peace-loving person. Killing defensless Grunts in Halo has made me feel like a horrible person, seeing the fear in the eyes of my enemies in Battlefield as I stab them in the throat has repulsed me, and getting killed by a tomahawk to the foot in Call of Duty has taught me just how fragile life really is. Hell, even the execution in Solitude made me feel powerless in a world where terrible things happen to people who may be innocent. As a result, in real life, I aim to not repeat the same horrible actions that I commit in video games every day. They give me all the satisfaction I need, along with a fair dose of remorse, which I never want to experience for real.

I honestly don't believe for one second that violent media acts as a beacon for violent minds and causes their actions, I believe they try to use it as a justification. It's not like psychopathy is something of only the last century, it's been around for millenia. Anders Brayhev wasn't driven by MW2 to go violent, his xenophobic, racist views drove him to seek a game to "practice" his already planned killing spree. The game had nothing to do with his means, and he attempts to justify his killing through pointing to games he actually cites in his bullshit manifesto as some of the evils of the world.

Despite what psychologists and psychiatrists will attempt or tell you, you can't fix crazy. The best you can do is catch it early and deter it. Nobody caught on to these two lunatics early enough. As Bob himself points out, they'd of just clung to some other facet of media as a justification for thier carnal needs of brutal violence.

This was a great piece. I agree.

But still, I think that if someone is "killer" insane, then they will always find a trigger that will make them snap. If batman wouldn't have existed, he might have imitated SAW instead. If CoD wouldn't have been popular, the man would have trained in CounterStrike instead.

That being said, I can't help but feel that overexposure to excessive violence can't be healthy.

image

Very well said. Thank God for Bob.

Now I'm not going to say what I think is wrong or Right.
I'm just going to give credit where it's due.
Movie Bob you did a good job and gave a fair sided debate. It was logically sound.
Mostly though I could feel how much he didn't like having to do this, It makes sense He admits he likes to talk about the funnier things, like goofy cartoons, so this show probably was like me getting a needle I hate doing it it stresses me out, but I have to. If I saw him in real life I'd just shake his hand and say how much I respect him, I feel he's a very intelligent guy and he's very agreeable, and intelligent person.

To start, I am not trolling. I know some will say "but if you say that you are expecting am emotional response, thus you are troll." But again I am not.

The same can be said for gun control. Anytime their is a shooting the Ban-all-guns camp will point to that as their reasoning. But firearms have their legal, legitimate, and lifesaving uses. Gun control has never been shown too reduce violent crime. Gun Crimes have risen in Britain even though it is really hard for law-biding citizens to get a gun. Note, I said law-abiding, it is really easy for criminals to get them and make them.

I honestly believe that if we did outlaw all manufacture and sale of firearms (except for military and police use) criminals would just make their own, its really not that hard. Underground operations that put out 10 rifles or 5000 rounds of ammo a day (different locations, different supply issues, but average result). Heck, Columbia already makes and ships drugs without much trouble, I think we only intercept 25% of those drugs anyway.

Banning all guns would just leave honest Americans without them, and the criminals better armed then ever.

You can't predict what a madman will do and nor can you link his/her actions to a form of media. They are mad or insane because of other PEOPLE not other MEDIA.

Case in point. The Port Arthur Massacre in Tasmania, Australia 1996. Martin Bryant murdered 35 people (including a mother and her 2 young children) and wounded 23 more in cold blood. What is seen as a normal day turns wrong when Martin casually opens the bag he's carrying (after eating a meal at a cafe), pulls out an assault rifle and starts shooting people. Completely unpredictable. Can happen anywhere at anytime.

His motive for doing so was linked to the media's attention on the Dunblane massacre only a few weeks earlier where a man killed a school teacher and 16 young children before committing suicide. It is claimed that Martin got the idea for his massacre after viewing the attention the media put on it and thought

However, I believe the real motive behind ALL murder spree's/massacres is because that individual person doesn't feel accepted by other people. In Martin's case, it was because he had an IQ of 66 and was seen as a 'weirdo'. He came into a lot of money and went travelling before coming to the conclusion that people everywhere interacted with him the same way. They avoided him because people could see/tell there was something wrong mentally.

I think the same thing is the cause of the Aurora shooting. James Holmes on the other hand was an intellectual who (unsurprisingly) lacked social skills. I argue that people saw him as too smart and as a result communicating with him was probably very difficult. He was probably pushed by his parents and other people to view his career as the most important thing in life and when flunking out on an exam he snapped.

Other people are the cause of madness. Not violent media. The killers just use forms of media (movies, games, news stories) as an excuse because they don't want to admit it is because they themselves lack the skills to live in society.

That's my two cents on the matter...

GamemasterAnthony:
Bravo, Bob. Well spoken and to the point.

I wonder if we could show this Big Picture to everyone who wants to censor the arts? It might (hopefully) get people to stop rushing into decisions on censorship based off an emotional backlash.

Flatfrog:
Great piece, Bob.

And of course there's one more obvious argument: if there are two books that can claim to have inspired more nutcases to commit atrocities than any others, they are the Bible and the Quran. If we're going to go about banning things because they 'might' give homicidal lunatics bad ideas, we'd be pretty much duty bound to start there.

I had to edit this post after reading this. I think it might actually be interesting to bring up this point whenver we see some religious group acting like idiots...like the WBC or One Million Moms for example. (Okay, granted OMM isn't a religious group, but the way they've been acting, you almost have to wonder...)

Oh, you mean you can't blame The Dark Knight for this sicko's actions, but you can blame the Bible and the Quran for other sicko's actions? That's a nice double standard right there.

I think people need something to blame at times like this because its comforting. If you can say "the nasty person did it because...x, y or z" then everyone can go "oh well it was tragic but at least we know his mind was twisted by...". And in doing this you can put distance between yourself and this person.

I think what really scares all of us when something like this happens is the idea that maybe nothing was to blame, nothing warped their mind, they just snapped, and that maybe under certain circumstances any of us could be capable of terrible, monstrous things. We all have unpleasant, sometimes even violent thoughts about people who annoy or upset us. Maybe what were all desperate to get away from is the idea that perhaps the leap from those thoughts to a tragedy like this isnt as huge as we like to think.

At the end of the day, this James Holmes, Charles Manson, Anders Brevik, and all the others are people. People who have done terrible things? Yes. Evil people? Maybe. But all of them are people, and as comforting as it is to find blame, to dehumanise them so we can distance ourselves and our feelings from theirs, what are we really afraid of? Them? Or what it hints that potentially anoyone could be capable of?

TBH, there is a section of the media that loves to find something to blame, be it a film, book, type of music or a video game, rather than actually look for the true cause.

I remember a few years back where, I think it was Condemned, was blamed for a guy beating someone to death. The media were all over it calling for bans and all the usual witch hunt stuff they put out, right up to the point that it came out that the guy had never actually owned or played the game being blamed and was looking to shift the blame for his actions away from himself to a scapegoat.

Now, I know it's kind of facetious to say, but the guy responsible for the shooting in Colorado claimed to be "The Joker" yet he dyed his hair RED not green, which is kind of a big mistake. Or again it's someone trying to push the blame for sick actions away from themselves and on to a media scapegoat

Well said.
I'm not sure I can actually add anything meaningful to that.

As much as I'm looking forward to more happy fun time big pictures, thanks for pausing and using an episode to say this.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here