4 ms·

I agree with almost everything you wrote but... it's easy for me to see almost no connection between viewing violence and people commiting violent behavior. It

I agree with almost everything you wrote but... it's easy for me to see almost no connection between viewing violence and people commiting violent behavior. It's much easier for me to see a connection between sexy media and sexual behavior with consequences like teen pregnancy and STDs. I watch a violent movie yet I don't want to commit violent acts after. I watch a sexy movie and I do start to desire to have sex. it seems therefore reasonable to argue that violent media has no consequences but sexy media does. No idea in reality if sexy media has real world consequences.

DanBC 8y ago
> it's easy for me to see almost no connection between viewing violence and people commiting violent behavior. You've been tangoed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV8zGNe7Ebg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV8zGNe7Ebg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Man_(advertisement) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Man_(advertisement) > The advertisement features an orange man slapping a Tango drinker across the cheeks, a wacky metaphor for tasting Tango, and was intended as a reaction against the norm of "cause and effect" television advertising at the time was largely focused on scenarios where peoples lives were improved by the product being advertised. Orange Man caused controversy after reports of injuries when children began copying the events of the advertisement in school playgrounds, and was subsequently banned, with two other versions of Orange Man replacing it, both showing different scenarios aside from slapping.
Beldin 8y ago
First: there's no "but" - you're not disagreeing worth anything GP wrote. Second: if we're going to go by anecdotal evidence, then we'll definitely have to ban anything remotely violent, as kids imitate that. While anything but overt depictions of sexuality are fine, since kids tend not to imitate them. Oh, and we should also ban the Teletubbies. Some kids started to hug their oversized tv sets ("big hug!"), causing it to topple and hurt the children. Alternatively, we could try standards not based on anecdotal evidence or one small group's moral views.
toyg 8y ago
You probably had your fair share of “pew pew” when you were a kid. That was your “i get the desire of violence” phase, then you just got desensitised. Or do you think everybody in the porn industry is perennially aroused on the workplace? Obviously not.
- tokyodude 8y ago
  I think a 16 yr old playing Call Of Duty doesn't then go out and shoot people. I think it's possible the same 16 yr old watching porn or even a sexy music video likely goes out and tries to get laid (fine) influenced by said porn/video but which can easily lead to real world consequences (std or pregnancy). In otherwords it's possible violent media has little consequence, sexy media has consequences. This is a response as to why some cultures are okay with violent media and not okay with sexy media.
  - toyg 8y ago
    Are you seriously stating that a 16yo tries to get laid because he’s watched a “sexy music video”, rather than because he is a 16yo? Sorry, I just cannot take you seriously after that. Dude, people used to have kids even younger than that, when media didn’t even exist. If you really want to rationalise current mores, you could try looking at how kids might have to use or face violence earlier that they get any sexual instinct, so they should be trained right away. But it’s still a baseless theory to justify a state of things mostly driven by arbitrary religious taboos.
    - tokyodude 8y ago
      I think 16yr olds shooting people in games or watching them get shot in the latest movie doesn't lead to 16yr olds shooting people in real life I think 16yr olds watching pornhub with gangbangs and other extreme sexual behavior leads some 16yr olds to seek that out. Something my parents for example had zero exposure too when they were growing up in the 50s. Where would they have seen that kind of stuff at 16? https://qz.com/849487/they-go-into-a-different-world-and-we-cant-get-them-back-a-psychotherapist-on-why-parents-must-talk-to-their-kids-about-porn/ https://qz.com/849487/they-go-into-a-different-world-and-we-... https://www.bbc.com/news/education-36527681 https://www.bbc.com/news/education-36527681 Note: I'm an in no way suggesting going back or banning anything. I'm only responding to the very common argument > Q: Why is a sexual media considered harmful to children while graphic displays of violence aren’t? I will never understand that norm. A: Sexual media has measurable consequences, violent media does not (so far)
wongarsu 8y ago
In both cases there is a complex interplay. Violent media can normalize violence and can cause people to be more violent (at least short term). It can also have no effect at all. It depends a lot on the content, the environment and the person. Nudity can lead to sex, but it can also contribute to sexual education (which reduces teen pregnancy and STD risk). It can also change you body image in negative or positive ways. It depends a lot on the content, the environment and the person. In any case, America's war on the nipple is in no proportion to the risks.
bad_user 8y ago
The US has one of the highest rates of gun-related murders. I don’t necessarily agree that game/movie violence leads to violence in real life, such a claim requires proof, however at this point we can see an obvious correlation. American culture prefers violence in movies/games, while banning nudity and waging an expensive war on drugs and yet it has some of the highest rates of violence, teen pregnancies and drug addictions among the western countries. IMO you should rethink your assumptions. When it comes to stats and trends, this isn’t about you or your preferences.
- throwaway675309 8y ago
  How do you go from "such a claim requires proof" to, there is an obvious correlation? Just because there are both more violent video games and more gun-related violence doesn't mean that those variables are connected.

DanBC 8y ago

> it's easy for me to see almost no connection between viewing violence and people commiting violent behavior. You've been tangoed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV8zGNe7Ebg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV8zGNe7Ebg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Man_(advertisement) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Man_(advertisement) > The advertisement features an orange man slapping a Tango drinker across the cheeks, a wacky metaphor for tasting Tango, and was intended as a reaction against the norm of "cause and effect" television advertising at the time was largely focused on scenarios where peoples lives were improved by the product being advertised. Orange Man caused controversy after reports of injuries when children began copying the events of the advertisement in school playgrounds, and was subsequently banned, with two other versions of Orange Man replacing it, both showing different scenarios aside from slapping.

Beldin 8y ago

First: there's no "but" - you're not disagreeing worth anything GP wrote. Second: if we're going to go by anecdotal evidence, then we'll definitely have to ban anything remotely violent, as kids imitate that. While anything but overt depictions of sexuality are fine, since kids tend not to imitate them. Oh, and we should also ban the Teletubbies. Some kids started to hug their oversized tv sets ("big hug!"), causing it to topple and hurt the children. Alternatively, we could try standards not based on anecdotal evidence or one small group's moral views.

toyg 8y ago

You probably had your fair share of “pew pew” when you were a kid. That was your “i get the desire of violence” phase, then you just got desensitised. Or do you think everybody in the porn industry is perennially aroused on the workplace? Obviously not.

tokyodude 8y ago
I think a 16 yr old playing Call Of Duty doesn't then go out and shoot people. I think it's possible the same 16 yr old watching porn or even a sexy music video likely goes out and tries to get laid (fine) influenced by said porn/video but which can easily lead to real world consequences (std or pregnancy). In otherwords it's possible violent media has little consequence, sexy media has consequences. This is a response as to why some cultures are okay with violent media and not okay with sexy media.
- toyg 8y ago
  Are you seriously stating that a 16yo tries to get laid because he’s watched a “sexy music video”, rather than because he is a 16yo? Sorry, I just cannot take you seriously after that. Dude, people used to have kids even younger than that, when media didn’t even exist. If you really want to rationalise current mores, you could try looking at how kids might have to use or face violence earlier that they get any sexual instinct, so they should be trained right away. But it’s still a baseless theory to justify a state of things mostly driven by arbitrary religious taboos.
  - tokyodude 8y ago
    I think 16yr olds shooting people in games or watching them get shot in the latest movie doesn't lead to 16yr olds shooting people in real life I think 16yr olds watching pornhub with gangbangs and other extreme sexual behavior leads some 16yr olds to seek that out. Something my parents for example had zero exposure too when they were growing up in the 50s. Where would they have seen that kind of stuff at 16? https://qz.com/849487/they-go-into-a-different-world-and-we-cant-get-them-back-a-psychotherapist-on-why-parents-must-talk-to-their-kids-about-porn/ https://qz.com/849487/they-go-into-a-different-world-and-we-... https://www.bbc.com/news/education-36527681 https://www.bbc.com/news/education-36527681 Note: I'm an in no way suggesting going back or banning anything. I'm only responding to the very common argument > Q: Why is a sexual media considered harmful to children while graphic displays of violence aren’t? I will never understand that norm. A: Sexual media has measurable consequences, violent media does not (so far)

wongarsu 8y ago

In both cases there is a complex interplay. Violent media can normalize violence and can cause people to be more violent (at least short term). It can also have no effect at all. It depends a lot on the content, the environment and the person. Nudity can lead to sex, but it can also contribute to sexual education (which reduces teen pregnancy and STD risk). It can also change you body image in negative or positive ways. It depends a lot on the content, the environment and the person. In any case, America's war on the nipple is in no proportion to the risks.

bad_user 8y ago

The US has one of the highest rates of gun-related murders. I don’t necessarily agree that game/movie violence leads to violence in real life, such a claim requires proof, however at this point we can see an obvious correlation. American culture prefers violence in movies/games, while banning nudity and waging an expensive war on drugs and yet it has some of the highest rates of violence, teen pregnancies and drug addictions among the western countries. IMO you should rethink your assumptions. When it comes to stats and trends, this isn’t about you or your preferences.

throwaway675309 8y ago
How do you go from "such a claim requires proof" to, there is an obvious correlation? Just because there are both more violent video games and more gun-related violence doesn't mean that those variables are connected.