I am the mother of a wonderful son who has been gaming since Donkey Kong. He is an expert in the gaming field. I have learned a bit, just by sitting next to him in the car! LOL
Video game companies realized that there were different levels of video games, which is why they voluntarily rate their games. I believe that if the companies would agree that, if youngsters are subjected to violence on a regular basis, as they are with the video games designed for adults, that, yes, they do become inured to the violence, and it becomes just something that happens in their minds. And violent video games and kids was the initial statement.
I’ve been in video game stores whose policy is not to sell R rated video games to children under a certain age (17 -18?), and they wouldn’t let a child buy the game. The kid thought they would be slick and get an adult to buy it for them. The store wouldn’t sell it to them. Why? Because it was a game that was not meant for a young child to play. IT-WAS-VIOLENT, or had adult content. There are even sections of our retail, connected with the video game industry, only, unfortunately, who want to be responsible about which games are sold to children.
My son and I were in a retail store that everyone in the US at least knows very well. It comes into an area, decimates Mom and Pop stores, has evil business practices, employees have to go on public assistance to get by, etc. Yeah, that store.
A woman and her son were in the electronics department to buy the child a video game. The boy was about 8, 10 tops. The game was for adults and was a very violent game, even I knew it was violent. My son and I both begged the woman to not buy the game for the child. We tried to talk to the child. Of course, that was like pouring water down a gopher hole. Wail (that’s how we talk here–hail instead of hell, wail instead of well–you get the picture), if I don’t get it for him, he’ll just play it down at Joe’s place.
Here’s a thought, why don’t you buy decent video games and have the kids play at YOUR house? That’s what I did. Then I knew what my kids were doing and no one came home having been knifed!
At the risk of being one of THOSE kind of people, can I just say that parents play a large role with the video games, movies, books, etc., that their young children read, play, watch, etc. It’s called standards, morals, the difference between right and wrong, whatever thou doest wanton to calleth it. I know it’s hard for families to be there for their kids when they have to work 12 jobs just to keep food on the table. But even with that as a handicap, there are parents who manage it
The reason people say we shouldn’t be talking about video games, or cartoons, or movies, etc. is because scientific studies have already settled the issue. Violent video games & movies, etc do NOT contribute to violence in real life. That has been repeatedly established.
If anything violent video games allow people to let out their anger and frustration in a safe and healthy way. At this point we’ve got multiple generations who grew up with violent video games and violent TV & movies dates back even farther, yet most of us are not going out and shooting people. It’s just the same tired old argument the older generation makes about something they don’t like in the younger generation that goes back to the beginning of the human race. It’s nonsense.
I’m really disappointed in Michael & Malcolm on this. The science is in and a reporter, in particular, should know that.
I was sorta disappointed in the argument about video games as well. Now we can have a debate about violent games causes and effects but like the previous poster said Supreme Court ruled on it in 2011. What I don’t hear is violent cartoons which if we are going to blame video games, looney tunes, etc need to be in the conversation. Now to the weapons ain’t nobody taking weapons but it definitely needs to be harder to acquire them. So far the logic I have seen is “well criminals don’t follow the law, so you are making it harder for everyday citizens”. I say yes, because right now I am guessing criminals don’t have to acquire weapons illegally because they are so easy to get. Fix this by making it harder to get them in the first place example universal background checks, mandatory waiting periods of at least a month, only allow the sell of a weapon by a licensed agent (to prevent the sale of weapons to joe smoe). It ain’t rocket science but we are making it so. There is a reason we don’t have many mass shooters or shooters in general in Europe, it’s way harder to get a weapon. Let’s just keep blaming violent video games instead not other forms of media, books, movies, teve, etc just games
Wow, Michael Tracey constantly with being a major disappointment. First with the mindless nonsense on making AR-15s illegal tomorrow. What BS. What people suggest is the banning of the sale of them, and making such sales illegal and criminal. In order to get rid of the guns in the populace, you need to institute something like a buyback program or something, which has had plenty of success in other countries. At least I think it has. I don’t know. Maybe Michael Tracey can report on it or something.
And then with the violent video game thing. It’s just so tired, and reuses all the moral guardian arguments about jazz, rock and roll, books, movies, death metal, rap etc. etc. And Malcolm even called him out on the blatant JAQing off.
And saying that “Nobody is saying we need to ban video games” or “nobody is saying we ostracize video gamers” and such, but that is precisely the society-wide conversation not too long ago (and is continuing now). The Supreme Court ruling that stated that video games fall under First Amendment was 2011 ffs. And it was not unanimous. It was 7-2. It’s ridiculous to suggest that nobody is making these arguments.
I want to see Tracey do better. On several issues (like anti-semitism for instance) he has demonstrated a lack of curiosity and diligence. But when he actually operates well, he can be a badass. I want more of that.
Comments
I am the mother of a wonderful son who has been gaming since Donkey Kong. He is an expert in the gaming field. I have learned a bit, just by sitting next to him in the car! LOL
Video game companies realized that there were different levels of video games, which is why they voluntarily rate their games. I believe that if the companies would agree that, if youngsters are subjected to violence on a regular basis, as they are with the video games designed for adults, that, yes, they do become inured to the violence, and it becomes just something that happens in their minds. And violent video games and kids was the initial statement.
I’ve been in video game stores whose policy is not to sell R rated video games to children under a certain age (17 -18?), and they wouldn’t let a child buy the game. The kid thought they would be slick and get an adult to buy it for them. The store wouldn’t sell it to them. Why? Because it was a game that was not meant for a young child to play. IT-WAS-VIOLENT, or had adult content. There are even sections of our retail, connected with the video game industry, only, unfortunately, who want to be responsible about which games are sold to children.
My son and I were in a retail store that everyone in the US at least knows very well. It comes into an area, decimates Mom and Pop stores, has evil business practices, employees have to go on public assistance to get by, etc. Yeah, that store.
A woman and her son were in the electronics department to buy the child a video game. The boy was about 8, 10 tops. The game was for adults and was a very violent game, even I knew it was violent. My son and I both begged the woman to not buy the game for the child. We tried to talk to the child. Of course, that was like pouring water down a gopher hole. Wail (that’s how we talk here–hail instead of hell, wail instead of well–you get the picture), if I don’t get it for him, he’ll just play it down at Joe’s place.
Here’s a thought, why don’t you buy decent video games and have the kids play at YOUR house? That’s what I did. Then I knew what my kids were doing and no one came home having been knifed!
At the risk of being one of THOSE kind of people, can I just say that parents play a large role with the video games, movies, books, etc., that their young children read, play, watch, etc. It’s called standards, morals, the difference between right and wrong, whatever thou doest wanton to calleth it. I know it’s hard for families to be there for their kids when they have to work 12 jobs just to keep food on the table. But even with that as a handicap, there are parents who manage it
You know what addresses “social atomization”? Home visitor programs for newborns! Proven to save $9 for each $1 spent on it!
The reason people say we shouldn’t be talking about video games, or cartoons, or movies, etc. is because scientific studies have already settled the issue. Violent video games & movies, etc do NOT contribute to violence in real life. That has been repeatedly established.
If anything violent video games allow people to let out their anger and frustration in a safe and healthy way. At this point we’ve got multiple generations who grew up with violent video games and violent TV & movies dates back even farther, yet most of us are not going out and shooting people. It’s just the same tired old argument the older generation makes about something they don’t like in the younger generation that goes back to the beginning of the human race. It’s nonsense.
I’m really disappointed in Michael & Malcolm on this. The science is in and a reporter, in particular, should know that.
I was sorta disappointed in the argument about video games as well. Now we can have a debate about violent games causes and effects but like the previous poster said Supreme Court ruled on it in 2011. What I don’t hear is violent cartoons which if we are going to blame video games, looney tunes, etc need to be in the conversation. Now to the weapons ain’t nobody taking weapons but it definitely needs to be harder to acquire them. So far the logic I have seen is “well criminals don’t follow the law, so you are making it harder for everyday citizens”. I say yes, because right now I am guessing criminals don’t have to acquire weapons illegally because they are so easy to get. Fix this by making it harder to get them in the first place example universal background checks, mandatory waiting periods of at least a month, only allow the sell of a weapon by a licensed agent (to prevent the sale of weapons to joe smoe). It ain’t rocket science but we are making it so. There is a reason we don’t have many mass shooters or shooters in general in Europe, it’s way harder to get a weapon. Let’s just keep blaming violent video games instead not other forms of media, books, movies, teve, etc just games
Wow, Michael Tracey constantly with being a major disappointment. First with the mindless nonsense on making AR-15s illegal tomorrow. What BS. What people suggest is the banning of the sale of them, and making such sales illegal and criminal. In order to get rid of the guns in the populace, you need to institute something like a buyback program or something, which has had plenty of success in other countries. At least I think it has. I don’t know. Maybe Michael Tracey can report on it or something.
And then with the violent video game thing. It’s just so tired, and reuses all the moral guardian arguments about jazz, rock and roll, books, movies, death metal, rap etc. etc. And Malcolm even called him out on the blatant JAQing off.
And saying that “Nobody is saying we need to ban video games” or “nobody is saying we ostracize video gamers” and such, but that is precisely the society-wide conversation not too long ago (and is continuing now). The Supreme Court ruling that stated that video games fall under First Amendment was 2011 ffs. And it was not unanimous. It was 7-2. It’s ridiculous to suggest that nobody is making these arguments.
I want to see Tracey do better. On several issues (like anti-semitism for instance) he has demonstrated a lack of curiosity and diligence. But when he actually operates well, he can be a badass. I want more of that.