Post by Admin Droid on Aug 11, 2004 20:18:59 GMT
I think it’s dangerous to dismiss the link out of hand just because this particular ban affects you. After all, there is a genuine point. It’s proven that extended exposure to violence in television and games does tend to make young people more naturally violent. It’s just common sense that naturally twisted individuals will be drawn towards and influenced by violent acts. Ipso facto, any form of entertainment that displays violence could potentially drive people over the edge.
The trouble is, thousands of activities have that capacity. Cars are extremely dangerous and are a big part of many premeditated crimes: do we ban driving? Sports like boxing promote violence in the competitors and potentially for the spectators: would our world be a better place if Muhammad Ali played rounders instead? Sleeping and dietary habits can affect moods: do we stop the production of food that can affect moods, and put surveillance cameras into houses to make sure everyone is tucked in bed by 9?
These suggestions are evidently ludicrous, even though they may well contribute to a less aggressive society. But every year, the government and the media (and not just the Daily Mail, but the broadsheets and BBC news too) look into banning and controlling and manipulating hundreds of your civil liberties. They have good intentions, and there’s almost always a legitimate point. But civil liberties aren’t infringed on the basis of merit, they’re infringed on the basis of ease.
Let’s start obvious, on home turf. Although the number of growing, there is a relatively modest proportion of people who regularly play videogames: the average gamer might be 20 or 30, but after this age there is a big divide. The problem is also easy to convey in a graphic fashion, thereby passing over the intellectual arguments. It’s easy to caricature videogames players, accurately or not: teenage, introverted, volatile, sadistic etc. Therefore it is easy for the majority to victimise the minority.
Here’s another similar example: hunting with hounds. Despite scant evidence that the destruction of this industry would change cruelty levels in the extermination of foxes one jot, the numbers involved in hunting are small enough and the images of dogs going for the jugular are quick to shock. Naturally, no images of foxes gnawing off their legs in snares are offered up for comparison. The people are easy enough to caricature, accurately or not: upper class, arrogant, sadistic, amoral etc. Ipso facto, let’s ban hunting.
Now consider alcohol. There are thought to be tens of thousands of alcohol-related deaths every year. It doesn’t just affect addicts or hooligans, but will help tear apart families, cause road deaths, and generally lead to aggression and violence. It contributes to and exacerbates other health conditions. But you can’t caricature drinkers: it would never hold, too many people drink. You can’t really convey the problem graphically either, because it’s internal, psychological. Alcohol is untouchable.
I actually think it’s quite healthy for people to experience their liberties under threat every now and then, because all kinds of people doing activities you might like or loathe are persecuted. These decisions are not made on a basis of right and wrong but easiness and difficulty to get through. A free society is one where there should be a clear and strong case for banning something, not a strong case for allowing it.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t take up a strong position against people driving, smoking, drinking, fishing, smacking, rambling, hunting, engaging in unorthodox sexual relationships, farming with pesticides, owning guns, owning knives, watching pornography and so on and so forth. Liberties can never be absolute. But just stop and make sure you have hard facts and not just television and newspaper showboating to show the precise reasons each given activity or item should be banned, because every one of us at some point or other has probably had a knee jerk reaction like the Daily Mail to something or other, and just because you’re affected today, doesn’t mean someone else won’t be affected tomorrow.
The trouble is, thousands of activities have that capacity. Cars are extremely dangerous and are a big part of many premeditated crimes: do we ban driving? Sports like boxing promote violence in the competitors and potentially for the spectators: would our world be a better place if Muhammad Ali played rounders instead? Sleeping and dietary habits can affect moods: do we stop the production of food that can affect moods, and put surveillance cameras into houses to make sure everyone is tucked in bed by 9?
These suggestions are evidently ludicrous, even though they may well contribute to a less aggressive society. But every year, the government and the media (and not just the Daily Mail, but the broadsheets and BBC news too) look into banning and controlling and manipulating hundreds of your civil liberties. They have good intentions, and there’s almost always a legitimate point. But civil liberties aren’t infringed on the basis of merit, they’re infringed on the basis of ease.
Let’s start obvious, on home turf. Although the number of growing, there is a relatively modest proportion of people who regularly play videogames: the average gamer might be 20 or 30, but after this age there is a big divide. The problem is also easy to convey in a graphic fashion, thereby passing over the intellectual arguments. It’s easy to caricature videogames players, accurately or not: teenage, introverted, volatile, sadistic etc. Therefore it is easy for the majority to victimise the minority.
Here’s another similar example: hunting with hounds. Despite scant evidence that the destruction of this industry would change cruelty levels in the extermination of foxes one jot, the numbers involved in hunting are small enough and the images of dogs going for the jugular are quick to shock. Naturally, no images of foxes gnawing off their legs in snares are offered up for comparison. The people are easy enough to caricature, accurately or not: upper class, arrogant, sadistic, amoral etc. Ipso facto, let’s ban hunting.
Now consider alcohol. There are thought to be tens of thousands of alcohol-related deaths every year. It doesn’t just affect addicts or hooligans, but will help tear apart families, cause road deaths, and generally lead to aggression and violence. It contributes to and exacerbates other health conditions. But you can’t caricature drinkers: it would never hold, too many people drink. You can’t really convey the problem graphically either, because it’s internal, psychological. Alcohol is untouchable.
I actually think it’s quite healthy for people to experience their liberties under threat every now and then, because all kinds of people doing activities you might like or loathe are persecuted. These decisions are not made on a basis of right and wrong but easiness and difficulty to get through. A free society is one where there should be a clear and strong case for banning something, not a strong case for allowing it.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t take up a strong position against people driving, smoking, drinking, fishing, smacking, rambling, hunting, engaging in unorthodox sexual relationships, farming with pesticides, owning guns, owning knives, watching pornography and so on and so forth. Liberties can never be absolute. But just stop and make sure you have hard facts and not just television and newspaper showboating to show the precise reasons each given activity or item should be banned, because every one of us at some point or other has probably had a knee jerk reaction like the Daily Mail to something or other, and just because you’re affected today, doesn’t mean someone else won’t be affected tomorrow.