Trump Announces One-Sided Plan To Meet With Video Game Makers Over Gun Violence
from the it-takes-two dept
In the conspiracy against video games that is now in full swing after the school shooting in Florida, it seems that it goes all the way to the top, by which I mean the recent comments by our Dear Leader, Donald Trump. Lower levels of the government have already begun foisting the sins of the shooter on the scapegoat of violent games, with Rhode Island looking for a plainly unconstitutional tax on adult-rated games and the governor of Kentucky trying to blame violent games for the recent shooting, sans evidence. And now it seems that Donald Trump has gotten into the mix, announcing that he will be meeting with "the video game industry" in coming weeks to see how they can stop real-world gun violence.
Presidential Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced at a briefing Thursday that President Trump plans to meet with members of the video game industry next week "to see what they can do" on the issue of gun violence.
Details on specific timing and attendance for the meeting weren't immediately available, but Sanders cast the meeting as of a piece with multiple others that have already taken place between the president and "a number of stakeholders" in the gun violence debate.
Except it appears that the reason the timing for those meetings wasn't provided during the White House briefing is almost certainly because nobody in the video game industry has any idea what Trump or Sanders is talking about. The Entertainment Software Association, which represents the larger game studios and publishers, came out with a statement that it has had no plans to meet with Trump, has received no invitations to meet with Trump, and would push back on any responsibility games have for real life violence were such a meeting to occur.
The same video games played in the US are played worldwide; however, the level of gun violence is exponentially higher in the US than in other countries. Numerous authorities have examined the scientific record and found there is no link between media content and real-life violence. The US video game industry has a long history of partnering with parents and more than 20 years of rating video games through the Entertainment Software Rating Board. We take great steps to provide tools to help players and parents make informed entertainment decisions.
It's about as perfect a rebuttal to the violent games argument as there is: other countries have these same games, but not the violence. For its part, the White House clarified later that the invitations to meet with Trump would be going out over the next few days. Still, it probably would have been good for meetings to be scheduled before they were announced to the gaggle from the White House podium.
With this being so one-sided, instead, we're left to witness another grandstanding politician with another whipping post talking about protected art and speech being culpable for real-world tragedy.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: donald trump, school shootings, video game violence, video games, violence
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
invitees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: invitees
Heh, heh. I'd like to see that! Trump's response would be all over MSM and make him look good! -- No one EVER seems to get the best of Trump with repartee. Certainly no vulgar little weenie millenial will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: invitees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: invitees
Well, that person would be shot to death via Trump's Twitter account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strong words from clown mis-using: "whipping post = a post to which offenders are tied to be whipped as a legal punishment".
It's likely useless to correct you. I bet you continue, and PROUDLY, thinking you're showing me up. So I just enjoy the hoots.
Anyhoot, this is just another of Trump's marvelous mis-directions that keep momentum going his way, not that of "liberals". If a stunt, it's respectively FINE and MADDENING to the usual groups, exactly as intended.
As for violence in general: know how many crimes were committed with (illegal for serfs to have) knives in London last year? Oodles. You are simply not including data that'd debunk your notions.
Oh, and apparently since "Parkland" NRA membership is up by FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND! More openly you lunatics attack core American notions, the more you set yourselves back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Strong words from clown mis-using: "whipping post = a post to which offenders are tied to be whipped as a legal punishment".
(And why is Parkland in quotes? Nevermind, we know why.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Strong words from clown mis-using: "whipping post = a post to which offenders are tied to be whipped as a legal punishment".
You know, the store was vandalized, *someone* has to pay...and it can't be the prince who did it, he's a prince...hence the whipping boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Strong words from clown mis-using: "whipping post = a post to which offenders are tied to be whipped as a legal punishment".
"Used it wrongly twice last week too."
The above is horrible sentence structure with poor word choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Strong words from clown mis-using: "whipping post = a post to which offenders are tied to be whipped as a legal punishment".
Going to tie him up
To the whipping post
And beat the living shit out of him 'til the guy in the audience is satisfied
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Strong words from clown mis-using: "whipping post = a post to which offenders are tied to be whipped as a legal punishment".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Strong words from clown mis-using: "whipping post = a post to which offenders are tied to be whipped as a legal punishment".
Going in reverse this time because why not.
Ah yes, the core American notion of [squints at notes] “I should be able to buy a military-grade weapon without so much as a background check”.
Congratulations! The number of members in the NRA still makes up around one percent of the US population.
Until such time as a knife can do the exact same amount of damage in the exact same amount of time as can a centre-fire, semi-automatic rifle with a magazine capacity of over six, I’ll care more about the human-organ-annihilating weapon of mass destruction and how it can be legally sold to an 18-year-old.
Judging by the past couple of weeks, his momentum appears to be taking him toward the Grand Canyon in the style of Thelma and Louise.
I hate the walking sack of oatmeal that is our current president, but this move is not “maddening”, so much as it is a moment to wonder why Cadet Bone Spurs thinks he is an expert on violence and its root causes.
Projection like this should come with free popcorn for the onlookers.
Yes, and? Even if the term was misused, we understood what was meant, regardless of your pedantic correction attempt. If you take such issue with the writing on this site, write an article yourself so you can show everyone how it is done—you know, as long as you have something to say beyond “YOU TECHDIRT GOONS ARE ALL STUPID HACKS”. (If’n you don’t, maybe stick to jerking off, since it accomplishes much the same thing as your comments but saves us the trouble of having to read your posts.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Strong words from clown mis-using: "whipping post = a post to which offenders are tied to be whipped as a legal punishment".
What's the relevant difference between the first and second amendments here? Both, by my reckoning, have the same absolutist langauge. Would a background check to exercise first-amendment rights be OK? Even if it's to talk about, say, a military-grade encryption algorithm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Strong words from clown mis-using: "whipping post = a post to which offenders are tied to be whipped as a legal punishment".
Guns exist for a specific violent purpose—to wound and kill living beings—so regulating who can buy them via controls such as background check makes sense. Speech has a specific non-violent purpose—communication between people—so regulating it in the same way as we would (and should) regulate guns makes no sense at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Strong words from clown mis-using: "whipping post = a post to which offenders are tied to be whipped as a legal punishment".
I disagree, though not being an American I'm coming from the view of an outsider looking in.
Both amendments have room to manoeuvre, and both have been discussed many, many times but the courts in order to work out how they should apply.
With the 1st, this means everything from whether the "free speech zones" implemented during the Bush era were allowable, to whether "speech" extends to things like movies and games.
With the 2nd, this has been everything from whether or not you have to be a member of an organised militia to exactly which weapons count as "arms".
In both cases, there have been found to be exceptions, so they are not absolutist rights as you claim. There are boundaries, places where the rights do not apply and limits and how they apply. You just seem to have major disagreements between yourselves about where the lines are drawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Strong words from clown mis-using: "whipping post = a post to which offenders are tied to be whipped as a legal punishment".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Strong words from clown mis-using: "whipping post = a post to which offenders are tied to be whipped as a legal punishment".
Are you really this dumb? The whipping post analogy is one in which someone of authority brings out their favorite target for a public flogging, attaching them to the whipping post. This one isn't really that hard, even for you....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Strong words from clown mis-using: "whipping post = a post to which offenders are tied to be whipped as a legal punishment".
Yes. Yes he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donnys still not gonna let you touch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/5/17082816/trump-gun-violence-video-game-industry-meeting-es a
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/03/trump-to-meet-with-game-industry-over-gun-violence -next-week/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What are the odds?
I am betting that Trump will in fact have this meeting. In his own mind. The meeting minutes will be produced by psychic mind reader with a background in channeling Twitter feeds. He will claim all sorts of success (whether game makers or any of their representatives show up or not) and propose...no...make that execute an Executive Order that will require purchasers of video games go through the same rigmarole that gun purchasers are made to jump through, and raise the age for purchase of games that anyone claims might have any kind of violent content (whether it does or not) to 35.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are the odds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank God he's involved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump versus Obama
Many of Obama’s speeches about fitness, education and children used video games as the boogeyman in child rearing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump versus Obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Choices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Choices
What to do?
Trade it to a neardowell for GTA a case of Diritos and a box of buds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Especially since the bulk of it arrives in this country from overseas. We need to impose high tariffs on it, and jail anyone dealing in or possessing illegally-imported "air". That'll address the mass-shooter problem and help the budget deficit at the same time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there's no scientific evidence, Trump embraces it. (violence and video games)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harder to legally fly a drone then to shoot a gun
The White House also wants to be able to take control of a rogue drone. Why aren't the same laws applied to cars and guns? I can't recall a drone ever killing a person. Yet out of control cars and guns are killing every few minutes. Maybe attaching a gun to my drone will get the government off my back.
Maybe the video game industry needs to package a real gun with the games to ensure the government actually doesn't trample the buyers constitutional rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Harder to legally fly a drone then to shoot a gun
- over .55lbs
" I can't recall a drone ever killing a person."
- civilian
" Maybe attaching a gun to my drone will get the government off my back."
- It's been done already
Reminds me of that joke where a woman says that maybe she should incorporate her vagina so the government will stop regulating it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Harder to legally fly a drone then to shoot a gun
Because current technology doesn't allow that as a realistic possibility, but drone controls do allow for it.
"I can't recall a drone ever killing a person."
Erm, I'd read the news a bit harder then. Also, even if they hadn't - should you have to wait until people are dying to enact sensible restrictions?
"Maybe attaching a gun to my drone will get the government off my back."
Americans are weird sometimes. You try everything you have to use your military to force your method of government on to other countries, but you're petrified of the government itself. When challenged, your only defence is more guns. Then you never seem to realise that the same government has better and bigger guns than you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Harder to legally fly a drone then to shoot a gun
Maybe ask Barack Obama about his approval of the use of drones in overseas military operations, such as the operation that targeted and killed an American citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Harder to legally fly a drone then to shoot a gun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shoot a gun
[Link](http://bdjobcircular.com/ekti-bari-ekti-khamar-field-assistant-mcq-result/)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shoot a gun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Somehow I get the feeling that he already knows that access to certain goods is the problem. But it is access to guns, not games, dummy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The whole thing is easily debunked by looking at the actual stats. Gun crime has mostly gone down since videogames became popular, with the notable exception of mass shootings. Meanwhile, although the same games are played everywhere else in the world, only the US has the mass shooting problem.
If Trump himself doesn't know how ridiculous this is, his staff certainly know. But, there's almost certainly more money in guns than games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New NRA Slogan:
Gamers do!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well it makes about as much sense as blaming games for gun violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Numerous authorities have examined the scientific record and found there is no link between media content and real-life violence
IOW, we have nearly 100% exposure to mass media content nationally. It is impossible to statistically argue that media content is or isn't responsible, because there is nobody you can use as a control group.
That isn't to say that mass media content isn't actually a major factor. It is just to say that people respond to the psychological battery inflicted by mass media in different ways.
The expectation of the state, and indeed most people will be that the variant individual is "bad", and must be controlled so that society preserves. The actual solution is for society to preserve itself wholistically so that less people are antagonized to the state of fight or flight, simply through the act of participating in it.
This is not an 80/20 problem. It doesn't matter how many people you lock up. There will always be a new standard for the variant individual. The harm scales up to create the variant individual.
If your company hires industrial psychologists to make your products or advertising more addictive, you aren't doing anything different than slinging dope. It doesn't matter if your making slot machines, or using puppies and kittens for ad-tracked based advertising. You are fucking with peoples neurons in ways that are harmful. And more often than not, you are doing it without their informed consent.
Computer games are probably a factor, but they are really the small players in this biosphere. The biggest one is advertising.
It was actually really interesting to watch people over this last power outage. People were actually tweaking because they couldn't get their media dose. Not just irritated, but walking around tweaking like full blown meth addicts. It was really wild to watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Numerous authorities have examined the scientific record and found there is no link between media content and real-life violence
That's nice and all, but I don't think advertising is that harmful to a person's psyche. In fact, I'd argue that because we are so massively inundated with it, people have become desensitized to it and it no longer effects them as much as it used to. In essence, people just ignore it now because they are sick and tired of these companies cramming ads down their throats. I know I do. That's partly why Netflix and ad blockers are so popular. Everyone hates ads.
All that aside, nowhere have I seen anyone suggest, or any evidence to support that advertising causes teens to go and shoot up their schools. That may possibly be an even dumber statement than video games cause violence. And no, computer/video games are not a factor. Science has all but proven this.
Perhaps you should refer them to a psychiatrist then? I also have a hard time believing this was indicative of an entire city/town/village's population. Full on media addiction of the level you describe is actually pretty rare.
Most people I see during a power outage either break out a book, some board games, or go out for coffee. Not to mention that a power outage is not likely to affect mobile devices, because, you know, they aren't connected to the power grid and cell towers have backup batteries/generators in case of such an occurrence.
So basically I'm calling BS on your claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Numerous authorities have examined the scientific record and found there is no link between media content and real-life violence
Learning to accommodate abuse doesn't mean that you don't continue to be effected by it. The fact that your view is consistent with that progenated by mass media programming should give you pause. If it doesn't, meme on tweaker.
"nowhere have I seen anyone suggest, or any evidence to support that advertising causes teens to go and shoot up their schools"
A lot of studies have gone into the psychology of the persons who commit these acts. Of course you actually have to read them in the context they were intended, rather than just listen to cherry picked snippets being used to confirm the positions of mass media outlets and law enforcement.
At the micro scale, psychology has accumulated a sufficient statistical base to identify causes in individual cases. At a macro level sociology and econ are not predicting the distribution of those variant individuals. This is not surprising considering where econ and sociology generally get their funding and their data.
My point here is that if your looking at a minnow from above and a whale from below, the problem is with the view, not the object.
The question then becomes, why is the microscopic view, so dischordant with the macroscopic view? And that should be obvious. It is basically the same reason you don't take the free gambling lessons that casinos offer, or free dope from a guy on the street. There is a reason it's free.
We know what causes individuals to do this. We don't have to look at it from an econ or sociology standpoint to get a picture. All we have to do is look for major increases in the related stimuli in the past 50 years. And if you do that, it is clear as day what is going on.
The whole country is being gaslighted. Some people find means of becoming healthy. Some passify. Some commit suicide. Some choose to respond with violence. The means to becoming healthy are becoming fewer and fewer because exposure to abuse vectors are becoming more unavoidable. (ever try to walk through an airport and NOT to hear somebody on a TV trying to pump bullshit into your head?)
Conscious decisions are less prevalent than they appear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Numerous authorities have examined the scientific record and found there is no link between media content and real-life violence
I agree. I don't agree that being exposed to ads constitutes as abuse. At worst, they are well paid commercial versions of "Bible thumpers".
Actually, my view is consistent with scientific study and fact. And there are no studies or scientific data to support the theory that ads are inherently harmful to the human psyche, especially to the point of causing them to go on mass murder sprees.
Agreed.
You mean the context where the final conclusion is that ads and video games had no effect on whether they committed these acts of violence and was instead due to pre-existing mental or emotional issues? I really don't see any other way to interpret their findings. But by all means, enlighten me.
Free doesn't always equate to bad.
Correlation does not equal causation.
The same argument for why video games do not cause violence can be applied to ads. People in other countries are inundated with similar amounts of ads, especially on the internet, yet the US is the only one with such high amounts of mass shootings and violence. There are other "major increases in stimuli" that occurred in approximately the same time (proliferation of cars, air travel, electricity, RF radiation, etc...), and you could say the same thing about them. "Well the increase in the amount of people driving cars rose at the same time the amount of mass shootings rose, therefore cars are the cause of gun violence!" Get my point?
Your whole last paragraph is total bunk. You also use gaslighting incorrectly. If we were being gas lighted, we would be questioning our sanity. We're not. You're using the term to mean that we are being deliberately and maliciously influenced by media to an unhealthy state. Towards what ends you believe this is being done is unclear. In any case it's not true.
Greedy corporations see a way to possibly make some money, most people see ads for what they are and either ignore them or find them interesting enough to check out the product. I'm pretty sure that Tide ads didn't cause anyone to go out commit mass school shootings.
You can easily be healthy in today's society even with being bombarded by what you term as "abuse vectors". Education and critical thinking are the solution. Though I won't complain if the amount of ads does get restricted down in a non-First Amendment violating way. I just want to watch my show from start to finish, not listen to a bunch of ads for viagra and shamwow that I don't need and don't want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Numerous authorities have examined the scientific record and found there is no link between media content and real-life violence
In statistical sciences there is no truth except by correlation. The reason that they are statistical sciences in the first place, is because there is no smoking gun. That would cover econ, sociology and psychology btw. So your bolded meme doesn't communicate what you think it's communicating.
"And there are no studies or scientific data to support the theory that ads are inherently harmful to the human psyche"
And you being an expert in whats harmful to the human psyche I'm pleased to hear your overwhelming confidence. I am by no means an expert, but I've witnessed enough harm over the years to have a fair understanding of what I'm looking at.
"You mean the context where the final conclusion is that ads and video games had no effect on whether they committed these acts"
That may be correct, fundamentally. But what industry functions based on fundamentals?
There are techniques in interpersonal communication that cause people harm. If you can't concede that, then discussing anything with you is pointless.
The next question is: "Can you identify them?"
And that is an extremely difficult question. And if you don't think it is a difficult question, then you haven't identified them yet.
And the next question is: "Can you identify them in mass media?"
And my answer is yes and yes. Every day. That you can't does not make you wrong, it makes you typical. There is something in addiction called: "addiction pyschosis". It is a lie people tell themselves over and over because the truth is too difficult to bare. One day you'll account for the hours of your life pissed away by mass media hype, you might become motivated enough to start looking for just such a lie amongst all those things you're so absolutely sure about.
"Your whole last paragraph is total bunk. You also use gaslighting incorrectly."
Gaslighting is very subtle by definition. It is used in a variety of different ways. What distinguishes it from any other behavior, is that it is intended to create a sense of emotional disquite in the victem. It really can be almost any behavior given the right context. It is qualitative mostly in intent and result, and less by method. But there are several methods that are most frequently used. And I've seen a lot of them up close and personal. Even used a few, though I'd rather not admit it. Most of us have at some point in our lives, though we often use them without being consciously aware of the fact that we are.
We've all had those days where we wake up, and go "HOLY SHIT!" because we've just realized that some huge truth has been staring us in the face our whole lives, and we simply failed to witness it. My best wishes that you eventually have one of those days.
Yes I heard your request for data. I'm not your research assistant.
The question you should be asking right now, is "What if its true?"
But more likely what your thinking is: "what an asshole, I showed him."
And thats OK too. I'd like to help you. But I just don't have any more time for that now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Numerous authorities have examined the scientific record and found there is no link between media content and real-life violence
False. There are many times when you can find causation in statistical sciences (I would argue the sciences you list are also not strictly statistical but that's another discussion). I will concede it isn't always easy. However, what you are doing here is looking at two events that both increased in the same time period and saying "yep, that one caused the other one". However, you are ignoring whether they actually are related or not as well as ignoring all the other stimulus that also increased during the same period. Why focus on one and not the others?
> *And you being an expert in whats harmful to the human psyche I'm pleased to hear your overwhelming confidence.*
Did I say I was an expert? Nope, what I did say was:
> *there are no studies or scientific data to support the theory that ads are inherently harmful to the human psyche*
So what I'm saying is science and the real experts say you're wrong. Now I will concede that some (not all by a longshot) messages of said advertising can have a negative effect (unrealistic body portrayal of men and women for example) but those are only a small fragment of all ads. And in no way could they cause someone to go out and perform a mass shooting. But ads in and of themselves are not harmful.
> *There are techniques in interpersonal communication that cause people harm.*
Agreed. But we're discussing advertising, not interpersonal communication, and no they aren't the same thing. Don't change the goal posts.
> *One day you'll account for the hours of your life pissed away by mass media hype*
Not sure what you mean since I only watch movies and tv shows on services without ads (e.g. Netflix), I don't even have cable or dish tv, and I use an ad blocker that blocks 99.999% of all ads on the internet. Including the ones that play before every youtube video and the ones in my facebook feed. So by my account, so far, about 0.0000314 percent of the hours of my life have been "pissed away" by mass media hype. I'm ok with that since I spend the rest of my life actually doing stuff I enjoy.
> *Gaslighting is very subtle by definition.*
So what you're saying is it means whatever you want it to mean. Cool, you do you bro. In the meantime I'll stick with the dictionary definition.
> *My best wishes that you eventually have one of those days.*
Had it. It came when I realized I'd been playing FPS games with mouse acceleration on for years and I should have turned it off for better accuracy. Seriously, mind blown. (And yes I am being 100% serious with that statement.)
> *Yes I heard your request for data. I'm not your research assistant.*
I've researched it and have found no data to support your thesis but plenty available data to support mine. So unless you can provide proof that I missed something, I can only assume you have none and/or are lying. So why should I believe you when I see nothing to prove you right?
> *The question you should be asking right now, is "What if its true?"*
Did that when I researched it.
> *But more likely what your thinking is: "what an asshole, I showed him."*
No, but I do feel sorry for you that you cannot seem to accept well established facts.
> *And thats OK too. I'd like to help you. But I just don't have any more time for that now.*
That's ok, I don't think I would particularly like your kind of help. However, if you've got some scientifically sound studies and facts to throw at me I will absolutely accept your help.
I'm sorry you don't have time to help your fellow man, but don't worry, I won't abandon you to hopelessness. I'll be here to talk as much as you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Numerous authorities have examined the scientific record and found there is no link between media content and real-life violence
Of that I am sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Numerous authorities have examined the scientific record and found there is no link between media content and real-life violence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Numerous authorities have examined the scientific record and found there is no link between media content and real-life violence
One of the things I have noticed is that we keep talking about this incorrectly. Correlation does not equal causation *except* when there is a casual relationship. In other words, there is a known mechanism connecting the two things. So, yes, we can determine when correlation equals causation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Numerous authorities have examined the scientific record and found there is no link between media content and real-life violence
To say that because mass shootings rose at the same time that companies were increasing their ad campaigns is simplistic and naive. It ignores multiple other stimulus that may have increased or had an effect on it as well as ignoring the fact that this increase in exposure to advertising happened all over the world at the same time, yet the US is the only country that also had an increase in mass shootings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Won't be one-sided
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think there should be a meeting
Then I think the video game industry's suggestions about how to stop real-world violence should be:
1) Better gun control.
2) Better access to mental medical care.
3) Affordable access to mental health care.
4) Reinstating the ban on assault rifles.
5) Better gun licensing requirements.
9999999) Video games don't cause real-world gun violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think there should be a meeting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think there should be a meeting
1 -being able to hit what you aim at
2 -medical care for all , like the rest of the free world
3 -see 2
4 -Second Amendment A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
5 -See 4
9999999 -So true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]