[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun

[Caliban Tiresias Darklock]

On 10:26 AM 7/22/98 -0600, I personally witnessed Chris Gray jumping up to
say:
>[Caliban Tiresias Darklock:]
>
> >I've argued for a long time that violent or otherwise 'unacceptable' games,
> >movies, art, literature, or what have you tends to act as catharsis a lot
> >more often than it acts as an instigator. Basically, if someone wants to do
> >something, they're going to have to do it in one way or another... and if
> >they do it vicariously, no one gets hurt. If we take away all the outlets,
> >where are all those urges going to go?
>
>This isn't a discussion I'd normally jump into, but a thought occurred
>to me on this....
>
>OK, so violent games, movies, etc. can server as a catharsis, letting
>out the supressed violence that folks have bottled up inside them. Fine.
>However, that presupposes that folks have been taught (and have learned!)
>to supress those violent impulses. 

Considering that the vast majority of violent acts are illegal in every
part of the world? I would expect that we can assume people are *going* to
be taught to suppress those impulses, and that those who don't learn to do
so will be removed from the potential viewing public by some sort of legal
process. There are really very few countries in which violence is
considered a good thing, and most of those would tend to frown on anyone
who just wanted to kick back and play a game. ;)

>If someone is raised in a society
>where explicit violence is seen everywhere, and that someone is not
>taught (or does not learn) to supress violence, then perhaps more
>violence in games doesn't server as a release, but instead is just one
>more reinforcement of the habit of violence? 

The problem in this case is not the subject matter of the game, but the
violence extant in the existing society. And besides, if a society sees
explicit violence everywhere, I think it has much bigger fish to fry than
the subject matter of a game. 

>A somewhat dismal view,
>but can we be sure it is wrong all the time?

The general concern you're expressing here is "Okay, a reasonable person
would have no problem understanding your game. But what about someone who's
been psychologically warped by an atypical upbringing?" Well,
unfortunately, if someone is psychologically warped their reaction to any
stimuli is completely unpredictable. David Berkowitz (the Son of Sam) was
instructed to commit murder by his neighbor's dog. I really don't think
that means dogs are a clear threat to society.

Interestingly, if you claim that your neighbor's dog told you to kill
people, the public considers you insane. If you claim that the Beatles'
white album told you to commit murder, the public considers you insane. But
if you claim that Ozzy Osbourne told you to commit murder, people get very
upset and start wanting to sue Ozzy and ban heavy metal. I think it has
something to do with how many people like the group you're blaming.

If you ever get an opportunity to rent or borrow Marilyn Manson's "Dead to
the World" concert video, do it. Watch the beginning, where all the
Christians are camping outside the stadium and preaching to the crowd.
*Those* people are frightening. And these are people who are supposedly
raised in traditions of peace and love and nonviolence. It sure doesn't
look that way to me.

Bottom line, certain people will twist whatever you give them into
something perverted and sick and wrong. It doesn't matter what it is. If
the viewer is unreasonable, his response may be unreasonable, but expecting
me to anticipate the actions of an unreasonable person is itself
unreasonable. That's why U.S. law contains the clause "reasonable and
prudent" so often. There are lots of unreasonable and excessive people in
the world, and their opinions aren't representative of the population.