I read an article in USA Today that asks the question of whether or not states can regulate violent video games to keep them away from kids. (Joan Biskupic. “Can states keep kids from violent video games?” USA Today. Print. 28 Oct. 2010). My studies as a graduate student at a college with a prolific game design program has opened up my interest in the type of question posed by the author. And this question is now in the Supreme Court.
I’ve not been a video gamer the majority of my adult life, but I am a parent. And this has been a topic I’ve thought about since my son started playing video games. In particular, violent video games. The state of California says the ban is important to protect children. The publishing and filming industries believe that if the Supreme Court sides with California this could lead to suppressed creativity in other media by infringing on free speech rights. I find it interesting that the Governor of California, who supports this legislation, made millions of dollars on violent action movies that I watched while growing up. But the real issue here shouldn’t be what the government or publishing industry believes is right for our children. This issue needs to be addressed in our homes. Parents need to instill proper morals and ethics in their children’s thought processes in order for them to not be influenced by negative forces and make smart decisions about how to be productive citizens in our communities.
I read a short blurb in the Free Press today about a woman in Jacksonville, Florida who plead guilty to second-degree murder for shaking her baby to death after the boy’s crying interrupted her playing of the Facebook game Farmville ... not Postal 2 ... Farmville. My point here is that violent games aren’t the force that make people do bad things, it’s the person and who they are that is the driving force behind the decisions and actions that define their lives. To borrow an analogy, “Games don’t kill people, people kill people.” I’ve even read studies that say game participants are less influenced by the violence of a game than their observers. The participants are focusing on gaming and the observers are seeing violence.
I personally believe certain video games are over the top in the way they portray violence, killing, maiming, and torturing. But that’s my personal opinion and I’m not willing to dictate to other people what is right or wrong for their children. Ultimately this topic comes down to a parenting issue. I’m not crazy about some of the games my son has played, and we have had numerous conversations about the positives and negatives of his game choices, but I have been a hands-on parent and raised him with the basic ideas that at this point in his life he needs to do three things to be successful: “get good grades, be a good person, and do the right thing.” And with these types of principles as a foundation for how he approaches his life, I’m confident that gaming won’t lead him to anti-social behavior or desensitize him to violence.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Peace through building community.
In my last blog post, I wrote about the idea that social media, in the hands of today’s younger generation, has an opportunity to spread the idea of peace through their global network. An article I referenced states there is evidence that sentiments among younger people are shifting and the warring ways of previous generations will not be sustainable. This is because views of our global and local neighbors is broadening from our connectivity through social media, creating a virtual student-exchange program.
In our Emergent Landscape class last Monday, I brought this topic to the attention of our speaker Rich Nadworny, a Burlington digital marketing strategist. He didn’t necessarily agree or disagree with the idea that social media will spread the idea of peace throughout the world. He brought up the point that just as peace can be spread through social media, hatred can be spread just as easily. In fact, there is just as much evidence showing that today’s media environment is desensitizing young people to the hurtful effects of their actions. The feeling of anonymity in the internet can bring out destructive behavior in people who are typically good and honest.
About 2 weeks ago, a Rutgers University student killed himself because his roommate and a friend secretly recorded the man having a gay sexual encounter in his dorm room and broadcast the event over the internet with a Web cam. This shows the darker side of social media’s grip on young people’s lives. And the intensity of that grip is felt by both the victim and the people victimizing. Spreading information and images online is devastating in that there is a major loss of privacy, and a simple search of a person’s name can reveal the images and information to friends, family, or employers for years to come.
I’m not saying that social media drove these two kids to do what they did, but I believe the current media environment is desensitizing people to the hurtful consequences of their actions. When these types of pranks are being schemed up, the immediacy and real-time aspect of the Internet does not allow the opportunity for people to think about the multilevel consequences of their actions. The victims become objects rather than people with emotions, feelings, families, etc. It becomes another reality TV episode with yet another hidden camera. I believe that because victimizers and viewers are removed from the action by the fact that they are watching it on monitors rather than in person makes the event more abstract, less personal, and some viewers may not even think it’s real. This adds to the callous attitude people have to viewing pranks like this, and ultimately, that callousness may lead to additional, or “copy-cat,” bullying behavior and hatred.
As I tend to be an optimist when I think about the world around me, I was really interested in the potential for social media in the hands of young people to bring about peace and understanding of others. I had passively, but not actively, thought about how it can be destructive. And Mr. Nadworny was not advocating that social media is bad. But what I took away from his point, that good and bad are spread just as easily in the digital environment, is that in order to truly understand an issue, you really need to look at both sides. If you understand the mindset of why people choose to be destructive and spread hate, you have an opportunity to address it at its roots in order to bring about change for the positive. If you don’t confront the reasons why people spread hatred, you’ll never be able to fix the problem. Tolerance for differences in race, sexuality, religious beliefs, basically everything, should be promoted as early in life as possible. Building a sense of community at a young age allows children to use that sensibility as a foundation for decency and humanity in their life as they mature into adults. And that, hopefully, will lead to spreading the idea of worldwide peace through any medium, digital or not.
In our Emergent Landscape class last Monday, I brought this topic to the attention of our speaker Rich Nadworny, a Burlington digital marketing strategist. He didn’t necessarily agree or disagree with the idea that social media will spread the idea of peace throughout the world. He brought up the point that just as peace can be spread through social media, hatred can be spread just as easily. In fact, there is just as much evidence showing that today’s media environment is desensitizing young people to the hurtful effects of their actions. The feeling of anonymity in the internet can bring out destructive behavior in people who are typically good and honest.
About 2 weeks ago, a Rutgers University student killed himself because his roommate and a friend secretly recorded the man having a gay sexual encounter in his dorm room and broadcast the event over the internet with a Web cam. This shows the darker side of social media’s grip on young people’s lives. And the intensity of that grip is felt by both the victim and the people victimizing. Spreading information and images online is devastating in that there is a major loss of privacy, and a simple search of a person’s name can reveal the images and information to friends, family, or employers for years to come.
I’m not saying that social media drove these two kids to do what they did, but I believe the current media environment is desensitizing people to the hurtful consequences of their actions. When these types of pranks are being schemed up, the immediacy and real-time aspect of the Internet does not allow the opportunity for people to think about the multilevel consequences of their actions. The victims become objects rather than people with emotions, feelings, families, etc. It becomes another reality TV episode with yet another hidden camera. I believe that because victimizers and viewers are removed from the action by the fact that they are watching it on monitors rather than in person makes the event more abstract, less personal, and some viewers may not even think it’s real. This adds to the callous attitude people have to viewing pranks like this, and ultimately, that callousness may lead to additional, or “copy-cat,” bullying behavior and hatred.
As I tend to be an optimist when I think about the world around me, I was really interested in the potential for social media in the hands of young people to bring about peace and understanding of others. I had passively, but not actively, thought about how it can be destructive. And Mr. Nadworny was not advocating that social media is bad. But what I took away from his point, that good and bad are spread just as easily in the digital environment, is that in order to truly understand an issue, you really need to look at both sides. If you understand the mindset of why people choose to be destructive and spread hate, you have an opportunity to address it at its roots in order to bring about change for the positive. If you don’t confront the reasons why people spread hatred, you’ll never be able to fix the problem. Tolerance for differences in race, sexuality, religious beliefs, basically everything, should be promoted as early in life as possible. Building a sense of community at a young age allows children to use that sensibility as a foundation for decency and humanity in their life as they mature into adults. And that, hopefully, will lead to spreading the idea of worldwide peace through any medium, digital or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)