A Lesson in Satire

By Plagiarize

There are a series of products. It is well recognized that over indulgence in them can lead some people to become more aggressive. I think most people realize that these products are more harmful to children, yet many parents turn a blind eye to it, adults buy these products on children’s behalf, and children manage to buy them by themselves.

There have been plenty of crimes where, it could be argued that if not for these products, the perpetrator wouldn’t have committed them. Attempts have been made to ban them and control them with varying degrees of success, but the problem remains.

The insidious marketers and corporate monoliths that make and advertise them, make them look cool and appealing. Their advertising often appeals to the very children that they claim they aren’t trying to draw in. Whenever anyone dies or kills as a result of their products, they sidestep all blame.

I am of course talking about alcoholic beverages, but the analogy should not be lost on anyone. My point isn’t that laws should not be passed to control the sale of violent videogames to minors, as it’s quite obvious that alcohol sale is controlled by strict laws. No, my point is, that nobody ever successfully sued the makers of alcohol for wrongful death.

We know that it makes certain people more aggressive, but we expect those people to be held responsible for their actions. Why? It’s quite simple, that person consumed that product willingly. If a drunk is still wholly responsible for their actions, how can someone who has played a lot of videogames not be?

Yes they desensitize people to violence, but alcohol numbs you to it and makes you more aggressive. Many people have had a little ‘dutch courage’ before going into battle. The army uses it? For Thompson that would be case closed.

Ah yes. Jackie boy. My good friend Jack has been in the news a lot lately. Whether it’s trying to get people arrested for ‘harassment campaigns’ or going on the news to say his usual ‘hundreds of studies show that video games make kids more violent’ and ‘damage’ children’s brains and to come back home and insult everyone who plays videogames.

This isn’t to be one of the other hundreds of articles attacking the substance of his arguments. In fact I think, Doug Lowenstein of the ESA often fails to understand how scientific evidence works, just as Jack struggles.

Before I get to my point boys, we’re going to make a few statements. There are scientific studies that support the notion that violent video games make children that play them more aggressive. However, supporting evidence is not the same as proof. That’s one for you Jack. Just because you have supporting evidence doesn’t make your theory proof. It’s certainly a valid theory. But it isn’t proven yet. Also ‘different brain patterns’ does not equal ‘brain damage’. If you’re going to use a term with medical connotations make sure it fits.

Here’s where Doug Lowenstein chips in with ‘there are no studies that prove violent videogames make children more aggressive’. He’s right of course, but it’s the kind of spin that we expect from Thompson. Lack of counter evidence is not the same as proof, and vice-versa. As of yet, it’s equally valid to say ‘there are no studies that prove violent videogames don’t make children more aggressive’. When you’re trying to disprove something, the burden of proof is on you. Jack has to show proof that the games are violent, Doug has to show proof that it isn’t, not pointing to the lack of proof to the contrary. It’d be like me saying Doug Lowenstein is a nazi, because he’s never once denied it no matter how many times Jack Thompson has inferred it, a ludicrous notion.

A scientific ‘theory’ is a very different thing to a hypothesis. It’s not ‘just’ a theory. A theory is something that’s been vetted, and as of yet, hasn’t been disproved or proven. Global warming is a theory, one without enough evidence yet to say whether it is or isn’t actually happening. You’ll notice though that it’s still taken seriously, and it should be.

If there’s potential harm, it needs to be looked into. Here’s Jack Thompson’s ex friend Dr David Walsh on that matter.

While the research base conducted on video games is small compared to that conducted on television, early results are showing that the concern is indeed warranted.

He’s admitting that there is insufficient evidence to prove anything, but saying that there’s enough evidence that the theory should be taken seriously, and he’s right.

I know that violent crime committed by children has been declining since the mid nineties. I also know that Jack claims the number of school shootings has been increasing (though I don’t have a source to check those figures myself). Assuming Jack is relating facts, I also know that neither of these facts prove a thing. All you can say from decreasing violent crime stats is that we’re heading in the right direction. You can say that, violent crime in teenagers is a reducing problem.

You can’t presume to attribute that to anything without a lot more data and the same is true of the school shootings statistics. A net increase or decrease in anything, doesn’t mean that videogames aren’t going against the general trend. It’s true to say that if videogames make children more violent, the net impact of that is being nullified by other factors.

Does that mean we should let children play violent video games? I don’ t think so. Just because we’re heading in the right direction doesn’t mean we should stop or slow down efforts to better those figures. If videogames are disturbing or hurting our youth, as some studies suggest (but not prove) it’s not something we should ignore just because violent crime is on the slide.

It certainly would be fair to argue though that it shouldn’t be our highest priority right now, but that’s not to say that anyone trying to bring in legislation is wasting their time and tax payers money.

But back to my alcohol analogy. Right now, we have a situation where a reputed 85% of violent games that minors receive are as a result of family or friends old enough to buy the games, buying them on behalf of the minor. If all those purchases were educated that’d be fine. Legislation would ensure that the figure was much nearer 100% and it would be no bad thing.

The thing is, as adults that drink, alcohol is understood. Adults that don’t play the games or read up on them before buying them their children are being hugely irresponsible. I have no figure to say how many of the current 85% do or don’t do that. No one does. But I can safely say that nothing is being done by the likes of Jack Thompson or the government (federal and state) to educate parents about buying games. It’s just ‘games are bad for children’ ‘games are sick!’. Some parents may look at some of the M rated games their children play and find them suitable, but not all M rated games are made equal and people need to know that.

Talking to Jack specifically now, bringing lawsuits against videogame companies, as if somehow playing videogames is more harmful than getting drunk and getting behind the wheel of a car, is irresponsible in many ways. It takes all the blame away from the parents of the killer that let them play games unsupervised, that let the child have a console in their bedroom where they could play what they wanted. That let the child have enough money to buy videogames, and didn’t pay attention to what games their child was bringing home.

A rating system is merely a guide. Some parents may, like the state of Michigan, find some M rated games appropriate, and some T rated games inappropriate for their child.

To sue the makers of the video game is to take away blame from the person that committed those hideous acts. Being desensitized to violence, or being aggressive have never been a valid defense. Factoring video games out of the equation, a child who is desensitized to violence and statistically more aggressive by coming out of a broken home cannot claim that they wouldn’t have killed someone because of those factors as a valid defense.

The parents of the victims wouldn’t sue the parents of that child because they were abusive to the person that murdered their children. They certainly wouldn’t support a case that could set precedents leading to the killer of their child getting a reduced sentence.

The parents of the victims of a soldier back from war, wouldn’t sue the army for desensitizing him to violence and encouraging his aggressive tendencies.

The killer was still fully aware of their actions, still fully aware that their actions were flat out wrong. Whatever made them desensitized to violence, whatever made them more aggressive, doesn’t change those most important facts.

Jack, you can fight to get legislation in place that prevents the sale of violent videogames to minors. Please do, but it won’t help your court cases against software companies. It will transfer the blame entirely from the designers and publishers onto the retailers that sell the games to minors or as more often will be the case onto the parents that bought the game.

There are many things that you could say ‘if the accused hadn’t been exposed to it he would not have committed this crime’, but that hasn’t been enough to blame the people responsible for that thing in all the history of America’s legal system.

Fight for legislation and education if you genuinely want to see an end to events like Columbine and if you genuinely believe videogames were a crucial factor. If you want fame and fortune, fight for huge payouts for bereaved families when the true killer has already been sentenced for the crimes he committed.

The truth will out Jack. The truth will out.

ADDENDUM

Yesterday, Congress voted to shield gun manufacturers and retailers from lawsuits brought against them by victims of gun crimes and their families.

“Our laws should punish criminals who use guns to commit crimes, not law-abiding manufacturers of lawful products,” were the words of President Bush, in a statement that could just as easily be about the games industry as the weapons industry.

I expect to see a similar attitude towards the game industry, but these are promising signs that the government knows where blame should lay.