Sternheimer feels it is these other over looked factors that are truly the cause of “young killers” (210). These factors include personal traits, background and family. Sternheimer also blames politician’s claims for the rise of concern for video game violence (209). She briefly writes of law suits on video game producers and points out none have ever been won (210). Sternheimer wants us to question why there are “young killers” (210) arising from suburban families who are considered by most to be decent, well
Summary of Do Video Games Kill by Karen Stemheimer In the commentary, “Do Video Games Kill”, Karen Sternheimer brings to light an interesting and incredibly controversial subject; are video games to blame for youth gun violence? She maintains that due to many biased opinions; political, religious and advocacy groups, the media have failed to provide ample information to the public resulting in the inability to form an educated opinion, in turn causing a mass hysteria resulting in tougher security guidelines in schools, stricter juvenile laws and far less personal and parental responsibility. An incredibly popular first person shooter video game, Doom, is ripe with gratuitous violence. So much so that it has been blamed for several mass shootings, perpetrated by middle-class, white, young-adult males. The media, politicians, advocacy groups as well as the FBI are steadfast in claiming that the only rational explanation is that of the individuals falling prey to the aggression inciting video game.
In his essay, “Video Games Are Responsible for Increased Youth Violence,” author Ron Moten uses his experience working with troubled teenagers to uncover the negative effects of violent media. The problem he identifies is that violent media is responsible for desensitizing youth to violence, hence increasing crime in our society. Motten assumes his readers are educated and sympathetic, but uninformed of the threats posed by violent media. His purpose in his essay is to raise awareness of a connection between violent media and increased crime in society and to convince the audience that violent media needs to be regulated by laws. To achieve his purpose, Moten mainly uses ethos to appeal to his readers.
He states that results of research on the harmful effects of media violence on children are either so vague that they can be openly interpreted to something different or so insignificant that they can be ignored. Fowles side of the article focuses on criticizing the opposite side. He claims that there is not enough evidence on the media for being the primary source of violence that infects children. He finds several interpretations to each of the research studies that claim that there are negative effects on the exposure to media violence. He makes a point that viewers are not incompetent and that they actively interpret and process violence in the media to know the reality of the violence they viewed.
She also admits that one of the problems with video games is that there is no standard for rating video games, so any content that is profitable is acceptable. One thing that she states is that the violence in video games has been linked to violence in the lives of the viewers, and that people who play video games naturally have a more aggressive personality. Though TV has also been known to show violence, Wrights says that video games are worse because they’re interactive. She also asserts that though people may like to deny the negative effects of video games, they cannot deny that the media is a manipulative tool that is used to trigger emotions. Wright’s closing statement is a warning to parents; she says that they need to educate themselves to keep their children safe.
More parents everyday don’t give a damn anymore whether their kids play games like this anymore. They need to realize that these games are not meant for them and that they could wind up like Alexis if they don’t understand the concept of gun-violence,” (I Sold Too Many Copies of GTA V To Parents Who Didn't Give a
This is mainly due to gender norms which are presented to individuals within the gaming culture, this can have major consequences when it comes to the gender socialisation of individuals within society, as traditional gender roles wherein the female is viewed as subordinate are expected and rewarded. Therefore the portrayal of women as over-sexualised, objectified and subordinate to males depicts an inaccurate representation of female gender behaviour within video games. This can have serious implications within society as video games have become an agent within the development of identities in its players (Miller & Summers, 2007:734). Lande (1993), argues that individuals exposure to violence within video games may result in negative outcomes in relation to a small percentage of individuals who are deemed to be more impressionable and also vulnerable (Lande, 1993). Although it is only a small percentage of individuals in which this relates to, there can be significant consequences.
There are other forms of media that are just as violent, graphical and sexual as video games, these range from movies and TV shows to music videos and even news. Violence I video games does not make children violent. Video games do not make children violent, there is no relation between violence in children and violence in video games. Since the beginning there was crime, deadly and non-deadly, but since the release of violent video games the people have finally acquired something to blame. There is a lack of evidence proving that there was ever any correlation between violence in video games and violence in children that have played these video games.
Pros, it can influence the economy by taxing it and generate billions; the con, no one could tell or know what society would react to such outcomes. For example, crime could possibly raise a lot more drug addicts on the streets, end result potential harm for young children. The world needs a change maybe not decriminalizing drugs or make them legal, the sentencing of possession should change to putting addicts into treatments/therapy. In other words they have a choice, jail time or therapy? Legalizing drugs in the state of California would help economy wise.
This sudden shift in people’s attitudes towards the use of certain sexual and erotic images in today’s society raises a number of questions that need to be answered in order to better understand the harms it does to society. What is pornography and how is it defined? If pornography is harmful, who it does harm to and in what way? If we wanted really understand and fully explore the question is pornography harmful to women and children then it is, first, important to define what pornography is and look closely to the opposing arguments around defending it’s benefits. Pornography, in today’s society, is known as a film, printed article or picture of some type of sexual action.