Cav's Place

This post has been sitting in my drafts for a very long time. Taking the post number into account, it’s been sitting here for more than a year. Occasionally I’d add a link or remove another, but I haven’t actually written anything in it until now. I guess all this talk about influences finally made me get around to it. I thought it might, even mentioned it in that post…

Let’s start with the one thing that I might in a small way agree with. I’m talking about movies where violence is used just for the sake of violence. That doesn’t mean I support any kind of restrictions, only that I can see how, in a certain context, they could make some moderately unstable people do the wrong things, so closer supervision may be required. I certainly don’t agree with banning them or forbidding children from watching them, that’d just make them more interesting and would not solve anything. And have to say again that I’m talking only about those where violence exists only for the sake of violence, not where its use is justified.
The problem with movies is that you can’t get involved, there’s no direct way to release the tension that builds up. Watching a movie, or anything else for that matter, is completely passive. When you play a game you’re directly involved in the action, when you read a book (which is not an issue for this post, only used as comparison) you imagine what’s going on, or at least you should, and I even consider listening to music as somewhat more involved than watching a movie or the news. But in this case all you can do is sit there and take it all in, the lack of release making it require a less severe case of existing mental instability in order to potentially trigger an undesired reaction.
Watching something containing unjustified violence certainly won’t have such effects on a person that’s at least reasonably sane and intelligent, of course. Which means it’s still the person’s fault or, in case of children, the parents’ fault for not noticing the problems and explaining everything in the correct manner in due time. And that’s the main issue: Potential violent influences may only affect those who are obviously prone to such acts, the fact that such people exist being their own fault if they’re no longer children, and by that I mean past the age of 12 at the very most, or their parents’ fault if they are. The media isn’t there to educate the masses, it’s not its job.
I rarely watch movies and when I do it’s mainly for the effects and massive battle scenes, preferably “with the fate of the world on the table”. That means they certainly include violence, but it usually has a purpose, it results from the story, it’s not an end in itself. Though it could be somewhat less than justified if the effects are nice enough I guess, but I’d have serious misgivings about it. I’m not saying I’m representative of anything, just that when assessing risk you should determine why does a person choose to watch violent movies or shows. It all boils down to the person…

Moving on to music, I think it offers a little more chance for release than the movies or TV. You’re still not directly involved, but there’s nothing stopping you from doing something to release any anger you may feel. When you watch something your eyes must stay on the screen, but when you listen to something your ears don’t usually have to stay in a certain position relative to the source of the sound. Not to mention that songs are much shorter than movies and therefore have much less time to create a certain mood unless you specifically want them to do so. Therefore music requires a significant predisposition to violence in order to have any such effect on a person, making it impossible to justify blaming it for any such acts.
A person who’s at least reasonably sane and intelligent will choose what music they listen to according to their mood, not the other way around. Of course there are people who are criminally insane or simply too stupid, but that’s not the music’s fault! Those people would end up doing the wrong things sooner or later regardless of what they’re listening to and excuses may be found at any time, but they’d be just that, excuses.
There is even a study saying that violent music may be beneficial, helping intelligent youth get rid of anger and frustration. It only included a small number of subjects, but I think it can be confirmed by a simple look around. Reasonably sane and intelligent people will choose what they listen to according to who they already are, also passing the message and any mood it may create through their own “filters”.
People who can handle themselves need choices and the freedom to make them, because they will sometimes find good uses even for what others consider to be bad options. What we should aim towards is reducing the number of people who are prone to making the wrong choices, who don’t realize what’s real and what’s not and are too influenceable for their own good and that of the world. And that’s not achieved by reducing the number of possible choices, that actually makes them even less likely to choose correctly when faced with a choice!
I for one have started listening to metal after Andra left and haven’t stopped since. I usually listen to music only when I’m very depressed, and I’m constantly very depressed since she left. I needed something “stronger” than what I knew until then, somebody sent me a few songs and the rest, as they say, is history. I focus on the more melodic kinds, can’t stand growls and usually listen mainly for the lyrics, using the music mainly to deliver the necessary “punch” to break through my mood and allow me to take in the lyrics properly. Yes, my favorite songs are usually depressing, though some might also be considered violent or even both at once, but I choose what I listen to according to my existing mood, not the other way around. Actually, this shows why I agreed with the results of that study so much, doesn’t it?

And now, the most reviled of all such potential “influences”: Video games! It’s so easy to take the newest development and blame it for everything simply because it’s still relatively new and many people don’t understand it properly, isn’t it? This never ceases to surprise me because, out of all these potential “influences”, games offer the best chance for release! That makes them a great way to release existing anger and frustration, therefore making those same reasonably sane and intelligent people I keep mentioning that much less likely to take something out on actual things or living beings, so how can you blame the games for the acts of violence committed by obviously unstable individuals?
I won’t focus too much on the other potential benefits of gaming, though they may include gaining knowledge, improving skills or physical abilities, or social interaction. I doubt that anybody who’s determined to see violent games as the cause of so many evils will care about those anyway. I want to focus on violence and what I’m trying to say is mainly that playing games, regardless of the degree of violence, will not make you actually be violent unless you already have some serious mental problems. It’s sad that so many studies tend to aim towards telling people what they want to hear when it comes to this issue, but it’s always nice to see that a few balanced ones do exist (though I have a problem with that one as well, namely the part about suggesting ways to limit children’s use of games).
The purpose of violence is important, but since the player is directly involved there can be a legitimate reason for apparently meaningless violence as well, namely releasing anger. If you are already angry or frustrated and need to let it all out somehow, I’ll say it’s far better to have a bloody virtual world readily available before you reach a tipping point and risk taking it out on actual objects or living beings! This way, violent games actually make reasonably sane and intelligent people less likely to cause damages or harm and the fact that they’re blamed for acts of violence is absolutely baffling.
What’s more, games can include moral choices and the path you take may more or less represent your views and values. This way, a person’s choices while gaming may be a way to determine the already existing risk factor, but they shouldn’t be taken as a cause for it. If a person constantly chooses the needlessly violent or otherwise “evil” path in games, it may be a sign of problems that could need to be gently corrected in order to prevent actual acts of violence in the future. However, if a person chooses that path only when they are already angry or have no other valid choice, it can be a sign that they’re a responsible individual who tries to find safe ways to release the tension and thinks before acting.
I for one play RPGs almost exclusively and that certainly requires a lot of thinking, planning and making choices. I think my gaming reflects my views and values very well since, unless I’m only playing to release some tension, I do my best to play a “good” character but I judge that mainly based on the end result, placing somewhat less emphasis on the means of achieving it and practically none at all on the game world’s rules and laws. I try to always do what I think is right and cause as little unjustified harm as possible. I’ll do what needs to be done if it comes down to it, but I’ve been known to replay significant portions simply because I realized I could have done something without stealing, not to mention without killing. I find myself baffled when I see people asking why can’t they be completely “evil” in this or that game, slaughter everything, rob everybody and so on. Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the idea that you should be able to do those things and occasionally use virtual violence and “evilness” to release real tension myself, but I think anybody who specifically wishes to act like that in games frequently has a serious problem that has absolutely nothing to do with the game.

You might have noticed how many times I specified “reasonably sane and intelligent”. Fewer and fewer people could qualify as being that these days and I’m quite sure that’s where the problem is. That has nothing to do with potential violent “influences”. It, however, has a lot to do with the stress this society creates, its absurd requirements, its relentless pace… And the fact that certain people in positions of authority like the ones they have power over to be stupid and irresponsible, it makes it easier for them to keep their position and profit.
That said, would you kindly let the violence in TV shows, movies, songs and games go and focus on the real issues, namely bad parenting, stress, stupidity and mental problems? Not all problems, mind you, just those severe enough to make somebody no longer know the difference between what’s real and what’s not, between what can cause real harm and what won’t. After all, I don’t consider myself to be sane by any stretch of the term, but I won’t go on a killing spree regardless of what I’ve been watching, listening or playing lately… Despite the fact that humankind often makes me think that such an act would be quite justified…