?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Videogames are the end of civilization.

Really. They are.

This proves it.

What, it doesn't?

Doesn't this show a decline in our national Fighting Spirit or something?

Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
jarodrussell
Oct. 12th, 2006 06:19 pm (UTC)
It shows that those damn video games are responsible for the decline in the adolescent death rates that adults have tried to foster since the advent of public education.
pyat
Oct. 12th, 2006 06:32 pm (UTC)
Of course, thefts and property damage are way up.
kwsapphire
Oct. 13th, 2006 09:40 am (UTC)
I dont understand. I mean, of course I dont believe belive video games are a source of child violence. I think we have the largest population of people on the planet who refuse to take responsibility for their actions, from enron execs to parents. But what I dont understand is, if we have the lowest child crime rate in decades (or ever, or whatever), what were they doing to each other BEFORE they were shooting each other in school?
foomf
Oct. 13th, 2006 10:41 am (UTC)
I think it involved fists.

Having grown up female, you most likely recall the viciousness of adolescent girls - the shunning, the emotional insult, the put-downs, the poisonous tongues, the cliques, the 'cute pranks' that never go quite so far as causing much physical harm, because then a teacher might see and then Daddy and Mummy would be embarrassed?

Well, there's a male equivalent for each of these things, but they're never subtle, and the fact that boys are expected to be more rough-and-tumble means that 'bruises inflicted accidentally while participating in sports' are entirely possible.
The usual victims are boys who are physically, mentally, or emotionally different, especially if they've been damaged, as the rabid-vermin instinct of children is to strike out against those who are weaker for whatever reason, and unless there is an adult willing to teach compassion and caring, they won't manifest spontaneously on the playground.

So as well as being excluded, the outside-the-clique boys also get targeted for punches, thrown rocks, accidental elbows and fists during non-contact football, etc. - physical bullying of all varieties from thumbtacks on chairs to beatings on the way home, that was pretty much the standard fare for several kids I knew (and for myself pretty often).

The emotional insults are generally aimed at whatever weakness caused the exclusion in the first place, and it doesn't matter if they're true or not because they'll be repeated over and over, sing-song, snide, whispered in class, etc. and may well be punctuated by stealth blows, stabs, etc.

They also used guns. The difference between now, post-Columbine, and the way it was before, is that bullies were seldom considered important enough to address as a problem, as 'kids will work this out between themselves' ... abdication of adult responsibility was and is a popular pastime.
Before, there might be a hunting accident, but then the pack-mates, er, buddies of the deceased bully would usually arrange for retaliatory death.

Does any of this sound like gangs? Well, in the cities, yeah, there'd be gangs too. In the more dispersed populations there weren't gangs, but there were clans, extended family, and their mutual murders would be called 'feuds'.

The thing is, it wouldn't be reported as a crime unless someone got hurt or killed... I'm not sure whether the increases over the years were due to more and more urban violence, where someone was more likely to report it, or be required to report it, or whether it was simply that (like other crimes) the reporting and record-keeping got better and thus reflected more of the reality.

And I'm certain that the post-Columbine "anti-bullying" regimens are having a big effect on reducing the violent crime rate.
drath
Oct. 13th, 2006 05:41 pm (UTC)
I'm also followed one of the hyperlinks in that article, the one about the "French Fry" story. Ouch.
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )