quote:Originally posted by reidcourchie:
Is there anyway we can move the relative posts over tot his thread?
We could go back to posting there. or you could move more than a few lines when you respond. But I'll address that in a bit.
quote:I’ll admit I’m not killing myself looking for evidence on this one but I have done more research that I would usually do for a thread on Barbelith... There are now over (1000, 2000 and then 3000) studies done which show that violence on television…etc, etc. The only things which changed were the number of studies. Which would lead me to believe that these studies don’t actually exist. Especially when I ask people to maybe list a couple as evidence, I’m called pedantic.
I assume for similar reasons, you thought it appropriate not to provide links? What I was suggesting was that demanding a bibliography when you're not very likely to check my sources is a bit pig-headed. But feel free to be specific in your questions, and if possible I'll provide a study that addresses the question.
In general, The Surgeon General's 1972 Inquiry (US) provides a long list of primamry data. And by chance I ran across - Belson, W. A. (1978) Television and the adolescent boy: A representative sample of 1600 male Londoners. I can go on, but it's boring; check out the book link I provided and find it at the library. Draw your own conclusions. I'm torn between laughing and sighing at the suggestion that no studies exist based on a few websearches.
quote:“It bugs me, a lot, when people respond with society has always been violent and posit that any new theory must be contingent upon some peaceful golden age when we weren't wearing severed genitals around our necks.”
Of course it bugs you because it is one of many things that makes total nonsense of your argument. The violent content of media and the dissemination of that media is now at greater level than they have ever been in our society.
Actually, the UPenn researchers that have been cataloging content for 40 years provide an interesting bit of grist for your own mill: the ratio of violent television to that which would be considered neutral or pro-social has remained almost exactly the same.
It doesn't bug me as a counter to my argument. Rather, it offends the spirit of debate in an attempt to close down discussion. Are we less violent than the Victorians? That's a whole other thread, and a topic neither of us, presumably, are very well prepared for.
quote:“To my knowledge, about 12 such studies exist asking that particular question: most of these are not childhood studies and taken together they indicate that the procession from viewing->behavior is stronger than the reverse.”
Based on what criteria. If that were correct then we would all be violent.
This leap, and the one that follows are dreadfully confusing. Why would one necessarily follow from the other? And based on what criteria? A couple include imitative violence, comparrison between data for viewing/violence correlation and preference/violence correlation. But no matter what I bring up, you'll ignore it anyway.
quote pretaining to regulation just in case)
Or drive, or smoke, or drink, or walk in the street.
Oddly, every postmodern nation has elected to legislate all three.
quote:No offence but your reduction of sentient human beings to media controlled zombies suggests to me that your dangerously deluded. (Yes that is cheap shot but I’m just making the point that I don’t like anybody other than myself making decisions for me.)
Actually, I've been very careful to separate zombie from participant in a media inundated cultural environment. You don't seem to be so fundamentally questioning in many other threads.
quote:I’m sorry but any argument of one (badly defined) group of people (or just yourself) suggesting that another (badly defined) group of people don’t have the right to make decisions for themselves is intrisincly elitist.
Yawn. Again, it's not a group versus another group. It's citizens of a democratic society collectively recognizing that violence in whatever degree is a problem for society and searching for the best solutions to said problem. We have made these decisions time and again despite industry telling us we needn't worry. To recall your earlier example, US citizens are legally required to wear safety belts while operating automobiles. Lives are saved. But damn them, those things don't make me look very cool. And poor General Motors: required to spend money testing them, money that I pay in added auto costs.
You go on to say that "a vast majority" consume this type of media with no problems. Which of course is why I mentioned the MSDS (still unsure of correct acro.) early on: wherin regardless of violent behavior on the part of individuals, television in particular is shown to correlate with perception of a "mean world" even when controlled for very obvious variables like living in a violent neighborhood.
quote: see if I’ve got this straight. I suggest we should address the social problems which lead to violence in society, you say do nothing and find a scapegoat and then say I’m adopting a why bother attitude. Makes sense.
Give me a break. Explain with quotes how this plays out and we can play nice again.
quote:Yet time and time again they censor TV. I still haven’t forgiven them for what they did to the Fall Guy, The Equaliser and what they tried to do to Miami Vice.
Failing shows that no oonger prompted the audiences desired by advertisers. Oddly, also shows that could no longer be sustained in the mergermania climate where a boycott or the threat of one could affect major 'gloms rather than individual stations. But whatever.
quote:“Japan, your fervent example, has a seriously violent pornographic mainstream media; but it's largely animated or cgi due in part to US imposed content restrictions following WWII.”
Easy with the racism there. Japan’s media is no more violent or pornographic than any other country’s. They have just a varied media culture as the rest of the world. They do have a more open view towards porn and violence than other countries, less wish to sweep it under the carpet. People keep on touting that rather tired explanation because the vast amount of Japanese media we see in the West is pornographic and violent which is more to do with our tastes than the Japanese. I suggest you look to your own culture before you start attacking other peoples.
This is actually the reason I decided to post at all, reid. First: what the fuck are you talking about? Second, did you not bother to read the thread. Ice Honkey first suggested that because Japan had more violent media accompanied by less crime, that the correlation was necessarily hogwash. Even within the fragment you quote up there, I note that the violence may be contained within animation and cgi media; which, to the clear thinking suggests that a typical night of live action television might even be less violent or sexual than US or British viewing. Even so, it's sometimes diffcult to find peoaple being shot with air rifles or scantily clad nurses on the big five over here. But yeah, I'm willing to apply my culturally informed standards to tentacle rape, if that allows you to dismiss me out of hand.
quote:There are two reasons for censorship, political control, or you think you’re smarter than everyone else.
I see you've thought ong and hard about this and that you've probably read a few bumperstickers as well.
quote:“Suffice it to say that the Marines use Doom as a firing trainer, and they've got a 95% firing rate in the field; up from 10% in WWI and 60% in Vietnam. Presumably, they know the business of training to kill.”
This of course has nothing to do with improvement in weapons technology or training. It is purely down to subliminal programming from the Doom computer game. Remember none of you have minds.
Arguably, the M-16's introducred at the end of WWII were less reliable and less accurate than their predecessors, but hey. But ye, it is a rsult of better training. Better training for Marines today (and thru the nineties) means having them play DOOM. Before that, it was simpler videogames and plastic guns rather than a mouse.
There's nothing subliminal about it. It's simple stimulus-reward. Marines are rewarded for getting high kill ratios while playing. So are civilians. One of the major differences is that Marines carry real guns around for days or weeks and never fire them. Same with cops, Guardsmen, and security professionals.
Really, reid, you keep saying 'zombie,' 'mind control,' and suggesting some spooky connection. At the same time you argue that societies have always been violent. Why do youthink that is? Oh, because their stories were violent and violence was rewarded and such? Or that we've always spotaneously killed or attacked for no reason at all? |
