There are three types of people who don't care to hear about the negative effects of violent video games: 1) People who enjoy playing them. 2) People who don't want to be bothered with having to tell their kids 'no'. 3) People who have a feeling the games are harmful but would rather exist in a comfortable bubble of denial.
Which one are you?
Last week, The California Supreme Court came down with a ruling devastating for families across this country. In a 7-2 decision, SCOTUS ruled that children of any age should be allowed to purchase violent or sexually explicit video games without barriers. Simply speaking, this means that on your next run to Target, your preschooler can pick up a copy of Mortal Kombat (one of PC World's most violent-rated games) along with her Elmo coloring book. Realistically speaking, there aren’t many parents who would allow that purchase to happen under their watchful eyes.
Which one are you?
Last week, The California Supreme Court came down with a ruling devastating for families across this country. In a 7-2 decision, SCOTUS ruled that children of any age should be allowed to purchase violent or sexually explicit video games without barriers. Simply speaking, this means that on your next run to Target, your preschooler can pick up a copy of Mortal Kombat (one of PC World's most violent-rated games) along with her Elmo coloring book. Realistically speaking, there aren’t many parents who would allow that purchase to happen under their watchful eyes.
But what about when they’re not around? That is exactly what the Entertainment Merchants Association is banking on. Little Jimmy and his friends biking up to Kmart with their allowance money, and perusing the vast selection of AO (Adult-Only) rated games, with no one to stop them from buying it. Games like Mortal Kombat has the controller impaling his victims in a torrent of entrails, and is a top-selling XBox 360 game. Nice, eh? Oh, and if you for one second think your child would never purchase something that graphic, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
Jon Stewart recently covered the SCOTUS ruling on The Daily Show. Now, I can’t think of anyone less likely to side with parent advocacy groups than Stewart. He’s a political satirist whose left-leaning politics more often than not poke gratuitous fun at the right. He’s funny, and though personally I am a conservative, I enjoy Stewart. He’s smart, witty, and knows how to engage a crowd. Our politics are pretty night-and-day, but I still enjoy catching episodes online. However, I was shocked to see his recent coverage regarding Brown vs. The Entertainment Merchants Association:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Moral Kombat | ||||
| ||||
Stewart mentioned he wasn’t aware of any effects violent gaming has on kids—of course he isn't. He's a comedian whose forum isn't to analyze this sort of thing. But it’s what I do, and I have a lot of information on that subject. Check out my page on Violent Gaming Effects.
The question I’m left with is this: If the government is now placing stickers on cigarette packets with cancer-infested lungs to deter people from buying them, why are they saying it’s OK to virtually maim, rape and impale victims? And if your answer is the template, “It’s not real-it’s a game”, then explain to me why so much attention has been given to this issue. Could it be that perhaps all the studies out there proving the negative effects are correct?
1 comment:
Look forward to reading more, always enjoy your 'stuff' Miss Chrystal!
Post a Comment