Violence

[luckdragoness]

Epic Fail Girl

Some believe that violence has escalated since the mid 1900's to now. They believe with all the additions of video games and television shows, violence is all we have to learn from.

Do you believe that video games and television programs are the cause and these video games and television shows should be moderated more?
or..
Do you believe that violence cannot be caused by video games and television and that humans are all inherently evil?

If you believe something else along these lines, please elaborate.

So, let's hear what you have to say.

On a subject such as violence, one cannot place all of the blame on one factor. Violence is a nasty little mixture of several different factors - environment, mood, psychological standing, etc...

I actually believe that the violent nature is not necessarily caused by the media, but that the media could give ideas...however, censorship is a terrible thing. While the media may or may not give ideas, without it the violence will happen anyway. Those who are prone to violence will be violent, with or without inspiration.  

[fairywaif]

Well, there are more urban communities than there were in the 1900s, so people feel the closeness of people, and they can reach them easier, which makes it easier to injure or kill them. There are more dangerous weapons (the gun) nowadays. And finally, news coverage is much faster and up to date, showing you the horrors of kidnappings, killings and the like every 6:00 and 11:00. I don't think people are necessarily more violent, I think they have more access to tools and to people which allows them to carry out their violence. And it used to be easier to keep things hushed up in a small town, but we have a Need To Know these things. Honestly, the two main things that are different that I can see are guns and news coverage. And I suppose, better transportation if they want to get away.  

[Melancholy Demon]

yay debate starts up again!

*cough*

ok i'm good  

[NOCTVRNVS]

fairywaif

Well, there are more urban communities than there were in the 1900s, so people feel the closeness of people, and they can reach them easier, which makes it easier to injure or kill them. There are more dangerous weapons (the gun) nowadays. And finally, news coverage is much faster and up to date, showing you the horrors of kidnappings, killings and the like every 6:00 and 11:00. I don't think people are necessarily more violent, I think they have more access to tools and to people which allows them to carry out their violence. And it used to be easier to keep things hushed up in a small town, but we have a Need To Know these things. Honestly, the two main things that are different that I can see are guns and news coverage. And I suppose, better transportation if they want to get away.

^ Uneducated post.

Firearms have been in common use since the fifteenth century, first off.

Second, today firearms are used in less than 3% of violent crimes. You'd be way more correct if you were to claim that the internal combustion engine is to blame for interpersonal violence in society.

Better transportation? LOL... before automotive vehicles it was horses, nothing has changed except the top speed of our transportation. Police in cars or police on horses, either way you're going to be riding the same thing they are.

Better access to weapons? Nope, how many people own a gun now? Probably 1 out of 4. And how many people owned a veritable arsenal of weaponry before the 1900s? Everyone! The way it should be!

And finally... where does this idiotic notion come from that there's more violence today than there was ever before? The ironic fact of the matter is, there's so little violence now that whenever it does occur, it seems momentous. Look at the WTC terrorist attack for instance -- do you really think Alexander of Macedon, or Great King Darius I, or Richard the Lionheart would even have flinched at that death-toll? Obviously not, it's laughable compared to what would've unfolded before any of them in a single day.  

[Buroabenteuer]

I'll toss in a few things regarding the interesting case of violence in videogames, see if they're useful or not.


Violence begets violence within role model situations: Albert Bandura's experiments on Social learning of violence show us that children who observe individuals perform violent acts are likely to repeat the violence observed when put in a similar situation. (bobo doll experiment). The key element here is the perception of a role model to the child.
-In the case of video games, fictional characters often replace normal role models for children who either lack such a model in their lives or choose to retreat into those avenues of fiction for any number of reasons. However, the scenarios portrayed in video games are often impossible ones, and any child raised with positive role models would be in theory resistant if not immune to the integrative social learning involved. Hence, any violence learned from a video game would be an indirect result of poor parenting, instead of inherent evils of a game


Catharsis matters: The release of pent up emotional energy can be very beneficial if learned properly. Positive catharsis techniques include frustration-releasers that aren't violent in nature, such as counting to ten, breathing exercises, and constructive activities that put pent up energy to use. However, the attempted release of frustration via violent methods ends up having the opposite effect. While allowing short term release, aggressive techniques end up causing the user to be more prone to aggression in general because the user behaviorally learns violence as an answer to short-term problems. (referencing experiments done by Brad Bushman, Robert Arms, and associates)
-Applied to violent games: if violence within games are used specifically as a vent on frustration, the simple act of viewing violence as a response to stressors increases the likelihood of violent behavior within the individual.
again, this case applies to those children who were raised ineffectively, in that they were allowed to learn violence, even indirectly, as a tool of catharsis, and the fault lies not with the game itself directly, but with the behavior tendency taught to the child by the parents.  

[BumbleBee138]

personally i believe that there are a number of different reasons for the escalation of violence in our society. first of all i believe humans are violent by nature, we're animals it's instinct. however different people are less violent than some. nowfirst of all i think part of the responsibility belongs to the parents, but not much. actually only if the parent is never there for their kid! as we go along there has been a major rise in the number of workaholics. therefore i believe that if a parent is never at home for their child, they will become idependent and will be more likely to join a gang because the gang will be like the family they never had! another part illeagal immigrant, they have nothing better to do than to hop our borders, and a lot of them join street gangs because why not? and on video games and violence i think that there has been an inncrease in violence in them and it might contribute to the rise in violence but if someone from a loving home played a violent video game they'd probably be less likely to do something violent than someone from a broken home playing the same video game. ninja  

[EBMoonside]

I voted "poll whore". Basically, because I think it's both happening at once - jeeez! why do I suddenly, feel like a box of chocolates? - and can be attributed to other causes, as well.

A. Sociological/Enivornment : This cause is one of the most well known causes of violence. It, also, has too many factors to, fairly, state them all. But, some of them are as follows.

1. Unemployment and poverty - They go hand-in-hand. I think we are able to understand why these two might cause violence.
2. Demography - Compare the U.S. to China, or Japan. Not just countries, but more localized, too. Cities seem to be big with muggings and robbery, while more rural areas are more religiously violent.
3. Age - Believe it or not, those who are in their late teens or early adulthood are more likely to commit violent acts than any other age bracket.
4. Education - Which, often, link into number 1 on the 'A' list. There just aren't many employment opportunites out there for those who haven't the training to better themselves.


B. Biological/Genetics : Chemical imbalances or just DNA. Even gender correlates.

1. Chemical - Testosterone (hormonal imbalance - a factor in the #3 of the 'A' list), Serotonin (quirky little transmitters in our brains), diabetes, and drug induced violence. Hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) may cause some to act irrationally, violently, and even hallucinate. Drugs is an obvious factor, here. We've all heard the horror stories of what some addicts will do to get their next fix. Then, you have the fact that there's money involved, which, usually, leads to stealing. Then, someone gets pissed and shoots someone else for not ''having their money''.
2. DNA - It can be inherited. Some people are born with the gene that predestines them towards violence. This can be encouraged by child abuse. A long-term cycle of child abuse, down throughout generations may even encourage this behavior to become a genetic factor.
3. Gender - Believe it or not, the majority (about 90%) of people arrested for violent crimes are males. In fact, no where on earth, at any point in recorded history, have males not made up less than 80% of violent offenders. THIS IS A FACT. (I'm not rubbing this in anyone's nose, I'm only stating a fact).


C. Psychological/ Hysteria - Mental illnesses, temporary insanity, mass hysteria and/or society as a whole.

1. Mental illness is a cause, indeed. Whether it's long-term, or temporary. Though, the "long-term" may correlate with #2 of the 'B' list (MAY CORRELATE, at times) and the "temporary" might be encouraged by, not just #1 of the 'B' list, but by long-term mental stress, psychological truama, and extreme duress.
2. Mass hysteria can cause many unintentional occurences of violence and death. I think it was well put by "Agent K", in the movie, MIB, where he told a potential "Agent J" that, "a person" might be capable of knowing the truth, but "people", as a whole, are dumb, stupid, panicky animals. In a nut shell (pardon the pun), he was correct. It's the Lemming Theory. The link to this piece of work - http://www.smallvillefanfic.com/archive/7/thelemming.html. I found it enlightening.
3. Society, as a whole can be damaging. Sort of like the Lemming Theory, only not as immediately brutal. This cause may seem more slow, and less effective, but that's not, always, the case. Many times, it has been only far too effective, and on a phenomenally greater scale. Religious wars, race riots, gender animosity, the age gap, patriotism (can be dangerous if used fanatically), and general social stereo-typing (sexual orientation, high school cliques, gang warfare).

Yes, this is a lot, but you did ask my opinion. Since I majored in psychology (child), and minored in pathology - and anthropology which I've only just begun - it's a subject I'm familar with and am interested in. A couple of these facts, I have researched, like the gender issue and the chemical issue. I know this is long, but there's a great deal of information within this wall of text. I hope you find it enlightening.  

[Social Emergency]

Let's rewind to primitive times, man appeared(how is the topic of another discussion, I'm just using an example.) there was no law, and no society. In this world of anomie, as it was, we lived by animalistic principles, in essence "survive at all costs". That means, eat whenever you could, whatever you could, however you could; reproduce by any means necessary; and maintain your territory and dominance. Thus people HAD to be violent, they HAD to be insensitive, they HAD to do whatever was necessary to stay alive. It was kill or be killed. The ones who survived were the strongest, because of this scenario it had become hard wired in our brain to survive. Violence is an instinct.

Now fast-forward to today's society, people have changed greatly, as society evolved and became more and more sophisticated, such primal ways became more and more unnecessary. It is, however, still instinct to survive at all costs, because of this man may always be violent. Unlike most animals though, human beings are capable of advanced, higher-level reasoning. Thus we have the ability to silence certain instincts, and emotions entirely. If we are taught such ways are incorrect we begin to correct them, as they are not accepted in society. Not everyone, however is taught that violence is no longer necessary to survive. Often these are children growing up in warring countries and rough neighborhoods, they live in an anomic world just as primitive man, they must kill or be killed. I believe, as well that as such primal ways of life are becoming popularized, slowly, violence is becoming a little bit more acceptable in today's society.
As individuals, we are generally civilized and peaceful, but on a global scale, as countries we are blood thirsty and primal. In order to achieve world peace, whole nations(including the USA and others) must work for each other not against each other. The way I see it, violence has not risen much in a global sense, it has just become more popular.  

[Count_Vladislos_Draculia]

I'm responding to the television/video game influence part.

They can influence violent behavior sometimes. Some people see their favorite characters on whatever they're watching being violent and decide to try and be like them. That's the theory behind it anyway. I think only very young and/or very obtuse people would be influenced by it in such a way though.

As to the other parts, I agree with Social Emergency.