Correlation Does Not Imply Causation
Back so soon,
I have been meaning to address this issue for a while now, but this article does it better than I could hope to. However, like any self-respecting blogger I need to add my two-cents.
Counter-Strike, whatever you-know-who would have you believe, is far from a murder simulator. It takes much more than pointing and clicking to prepare someone for the experience of actually killing. Cho was calm because he was a psychopath. I, and millions of other people, play CS and other violent games yet have never felt the urge to commit such an atrocity. Gaming did not make him who he was.
In conclusion, Jack Thompson is an opportunistic, self-important hack who has made a name for himself by exploiting tragedy. Unfortunately, however unsuccessful all of his numerous lawsuits end up, he never seems to go away.
Perhaps more at a later date,
Nowhere Man
2 comments:
I wrote a big-ass research paper, probably my first "research paper" in sixth grade about Columbine.
I said, and still believe, that Doom (at that point) had been released on pretty much every modern gaming platform widely available in America and TWO PEOPLE may have done something horrible with a connection to it.
Be that as it may...in this case, at least, gaming is an entirely moot point. Cho DID NOT PLAY GAMES. Case closed.
This entire issue is dumb, though, it is being presented (and defended) the wrong way. To those who believe games are awful: No, they aren't. Violent media (movies, music, television, games) aren't awful in and of themselves, and they are never "THE REASON" for anything. Could they contribute? Sure. But are they SOLELY responsible? NEVER. And the same should be said to gamers: Games ARE violent and could be involved in fucking up a child or disturbing even further someone who is already unstable (though the same could be said of pretty much everything, my point is that games are NOT untouchable).
I guess what I mean is: There are two sides to every issue, and both sides are missing the point here because both sides are partially correct.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Post a Comment