HorrorMovieFans.com

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:people seek validation. damaged and unstable people are going to take validation from art and artists that aren't really meaning to give it to them. darth vader wasn't created to be aspired to. hannibal lecter wasn't created to be aspired to. but damaged and unstable people may still take them or their fictional acts as inspiration and aspiration. that's not the fault of the filmmakers, writers, creators.. whatever. so let's not make that the conversation.

Nobody here is making that the conversation. You're responding to the Columbine argument, not my argument.

parents and guardians do need to look out for how children are being influenced and for how they are being treated by peers. when you bring media influence into it, the blame most often gets placed there. and so the onus is shifted to the artists or to some government body to regulate, rather than parents and the local community. i'm wary of that, understandably.

I'm in 100% agreement with you here. I think the artists are 0% culpable. But art is powerful and I don't think it's unreasonable to think an uptick in violence we're exposed to in media/entertainment could have an effect on people's real life behavior. I think people don't want to acknowledge that this is probably true because they assume you're inherently shifting responsibility to the artists in doing so. Not at all. I'm less interested in finding someone to blame than I am in objectively ID'ing problems and finding solutions.

if a parent feels that john wick or slipknot is negatively influencing their child, then by all means they should do something about it, on a localized, case by case basis. i don't think anyone was debating against that though? so, i have to ask what solution you're trying to find.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:people seek validation. damaged and unstable people are going to take validation from art and artists that aren't really meaning to give it to them. darth vader wasn't created to be aspired to. hannibal lecter wasn't created to be aspired to. but damaged and unstable people may still take them or their fictional acts as inspiration and aspiration. that's not the fault of the filmmakers, writers, creators.. whatever. so let's not make that the conversation.

Nobody here is making that the conversation. You're responding to the Columbine argument, not my argument.

parents and guardians do need to look out for how children are being influenced and for how they are being treated by peers. when you bring media influence into it, the blame most often gets placed there. and so the onus is shifted to the artists or to some government body to regulate, rather than parents and the local community. i'm wary of that, understandably.

I'm in 100% agreement with you here. I think the artists are 0% culpable. But art is powerful and I don't think it's unreasonable to think an uptick in violence we're exposed to in media/entertainment could have an effect on people's real life behavior. I think people don't want to acknowledge that this is probably true because they assume you're inherently shifting responsibility to the artists in doing so. Not at all. I'm less interested in finding someone to blame than I am in objectively ID'ing problems and finding solutions.

if a parent feels that john wick or slipknot is negatively influencing their child, then by all means they should do something about it, on a localized, case by case basis. i don't think anyone was debating against that though? so, i have to ask what solution you're trying to find.

I wasn't debating anything when I made my initial post. All I did was point out that this stuff does have an effect and that it seems fairly obvious to me. People don't even engage in that conversation because they assume you're a Sunday school teacher shaking your fist at those rock n' rollers.

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:people seek validation. damaged and unstable people are going to take validation from art and artists that aren't really meaning to give it to them. darth vader wasn't created to be aspired to. hannibal lecter wasn't created to be aspired to. but damaged and unstable people may still take them or their fictional acts as inspiration and aspiration. that's not the fault of the filmmakers, writers, creators.. whatever. so let's not make that the conversation.

Nobody here is making that the conversation. You're responding to the Columbine argument, not my argument.

parents and guardians do need to look out for how children are being influenced and for how they are being treated by peers. when you bring media influence into it, the blame most often gets placed there. and so the onus is shifted to the artists or to some government body to regulate, rather than parents and the local community. i'm wary of that, understandably.

I'm in 100% agreement with you here. I think the artists are 0% culpable. But art is powerful and I don't think it's unreasonable to think an uptick in violence we're exposed to in media/entertainment could have an effect on people's real life behavior. I think people don't want to acknowledge that this is probably true because they assume you're inherently shifting responsibility to the artists in doing so. Not at all. I'm less interested in finding someone to blame than I am in objectively ID'ing problems and finding solutions.

if a parent feels that john wick or slipknot is negatively influencing their child, then by all means they should do something about it, on a localized, case by case basis. i don't think anyone was debating against that though? so, i have to ask what solution you're trying to find.

I wasn't debating anything when I made my initial post. All I did was point out that this stuff does have an effect and that it seems fairly obvious to me. People don't even engage in that conversation because they assume you're a Sunday school teacher shaking your fist at those rock n' rollers.

i'll engage in the conversation. of course art has an influence. the purpose is to engage and make you think and feel. we've all taken certain films or television shows or songs to heart. damaged and unstable people will take it to heart too, in their damaged and unstable way.

And this is where I have a problem with the super "cool" liberal parents who basically let their kids see whatever they want at a young age because they're so cool and censorship is bad, man. No you should actually be closely regulating that stuff, your kids are not a thought experiment in defense of your political and philosophical ideologies, they're balls of clay molded by everything they're exposed to.

agreed. regulate it on a personal and local level. and also talk to your kids about what they're seeing and what they're feeling about it. take a role in raising your children. be active in their lives, or don't have them in the first place.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:people seek validation. damaged and unstable people are going to take validation from art and artists that aren't really meaning to give it to them. darth vader wasn't created to be aspired to. hannibal lecter wasn't created to be aspired to. but damaged and unstable people may still take them or their fictional acts as inspiration and aspiration. that's not the fault of the filmmakers, writers, creators.. whatever. so let's not make that the conversation.

Nobody here is making that the conversation. You're responding to the Columbine argument, not my argument.

parents and guardians do need to look out for how children are being influenced and for how they are being treated by peers. when you bring media influence into it, the blame most often gets placed there. and so the onus is shifted to the artists or to some government body to regulate, rather than parents and the local community. i'm wary of that, understandably.

I'm in 100% agreement with you here. I think the artists are 0% culpable. But art is powerful and I don't think it's unreasonable to think an uptick in violence we're exposed to in media/entertainment could have an effect on people's real life behavior. I think people don't want to acknowledge that this is probably true because they assume you're inherently shifting responsibility to the artists in doing so. Not at all. I'm less interested in finding someone to blame than I am in objectively ID'ing problems and finding solutions.

if a parent feels that john wick or slipknot is negatively influencing their child, then by all means they should do something about it, on a localized, case by case basis. i don't think anyone was debating against that though? so, i have to ask what solution you're trying to find.

I wasn't debating anything when I made my initial post. All I did was point out that this stuff does have an effect and that it seems fairly obvious to me. People don't even engage in that conversation because they assume you're a Sunday school teacher shaking your fist at those rock n' rollers.

i'll engage in the conversation. of course art has an influence. the purpose is to engage and make you think and feel. we've all taken certain films or television shows or songs to heart. damaged and unstable people will take it to heart too, in their damaged and unstable way.

And that is a problem, though as I said earlier, the person who engages with the art is responsible.

It's a combination of desensitization to violence through exposure to it over your lifetime and a lack of socialization, particularly with the video games because nobody can do the same thing for longer periods of time than a person playing video games. The kid who is outside running around with his friends is less likely to end up in that headspace. But those kids are the minority now. Hell parents don't let their kids leave the house, they remember what they were up to when their own parents let them leave the house, but somehow can't see that going out, getting into trouble and socializing was good for them and built their character. Too much focus on being scared of your 15 year old knocking down a few beers and not enough on them sitting in their room all weekend.

zombie wrote:agreed. regulate it on a personal and local level. and also talk to your kids about what they're seeing and what they're feeling about it. take a role in raising your children. be active in their lives, or don't have them in the first place.

Yes. Engage them in dialogue about what you're exposing them to, see how they respond to the stuff you're on the fence about. You'll know exactly how they're responding to what they're exposed to and can adjust accordingly or stay the course.

I say all that having never been responsible for a child's birth, but that would be my philosophy. Of course we all want them to be exposed to all the awesome shit we like as quickly as feasibly possible and move on from the stupid shit kids like, but you gotta be objective. And don't be afraid to keep them in the PG-13 or T zone longer than you would have liked. They can float there for a while.

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:people seek validation. damaged and unstable people are going to take validation from art and artists that aren't really meaning to give it to them. darth vader wasn't created to be aspired to. hannibal lecter wasn't created to be aspired to. but damaged and unstable people may still take them or their fictional acts as inspiration and aspiration. that's not the fault of the filmmakers, writers, creators.. whatever. so let's not make that the conversation.

Nobody here is making that the conversation. You're responding to the Columbine argument, not my argument.

parents and guardians do need to look out for how children are being influenced and for how they are being treated by peers. when you bring media influence into it, the blame most often gets placed there. and so the onus is shifted to the artists or to some government body to regulate, rather than parents and the local community. i'm wary of that, understandably.

I'm in 100% agreement with you here. I think the artists are 0% culpable. But art is powerful and I don't think it's unreasonable to think an uptick in violence we're exposed to in media/entertainment could have an effect on people's real life behavior. I think people don't want to acknowledge that this is probably true because they assume you're inherently shifting responsibility to the artists in doing so. Not at all. I'm less interested in finding someone to blame than I am in objectively ID'ing problems and finding solutions.

if a parent feels that john wick or slipknot is negatively influencing their child, then by all means they should do something about it, on a localized, case by case basis. i don't think anyone was debating against that though? so, i have to ask what solution you're trying to find.

I wasn't debating anything when I made my initial post. All I did was point out that this stuff does have an effect and that it seems fairly obvious to me. People don't even engage in that conversation because they assume you're a Sunday school teacher shaking your fist at those rock n' rollers.

i'll engage in the conversation. of course art has an influence. the purpose is to engage and make you think and feel. we've all taken certain films or television shows or songs to heart. damaged and unstable people will take it to heart too, in their damaged and unstable way.

And that is a problem, though as I said earlier, the person who engages with the art is responsible.

It's a combination of desensitization to violence through exposure to it over your lifetime and a lack of socialization, particularly with the video games because nobody can do the same thing for longer periods of time than a person playing video games. The kid who is outside running around with his friends is less likely to end up in that headspace. But those kids are the minority now. Hell parents don't let their kids leave the house, they remember what they were up to when their own parents let them leave the house, but somehow can't see that going out, getting into trouble and socializing was good for them and built their character. Too much focus on being scared of your 15 year old knocking down a few beers and not enough on them sitting in their room all weekend.

this is not to say that i think it can't happen, but i've found, for myself at least, that fictional violence and harm has not really done much to desensitize me to actual real world violence or to be callous, numb to people being hurt or killed. so, based around my experience, it seems to indicate that something else is more at play, than just the amount of fictional violence consumed.

perhaps, keeping them stuck at home causes them to feel isolated and more indifferent, more uncaring about other people. again, you mentioned lack of socialization. that seems like the bigger factor. but this is just from my experience and my perception and how the art has affected me. everyone is going to be different, but there will still be commonality somewhere. especially when we're raised in the same country.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:people seek validation. damaged and unstable people are going to take validation from art and artists that aren't really meaning to give it to them. darth vader wasn't created to be aspired to. hannibal lecter wasn't created to be aspired to. but damaged and unstable people may still take them or their fictional acts as inspiration and aspiration. that's not the fault of the filmmakers, writers, creators.. whatever. so let's not make that the conversation.

Nobody here is making that the conversation. You're responding to the Columbine argument, not my argument.

parents and guardians do need to look out for how children are being influenced and for how they are being treated by peers. when you bring media influence into it, the blame most often gets placed there. and so the onus is shifted to the artists or to some government body to regulate, rather than parents and the local community. i'm wary of that, understandably.

I'm in 100% agreement with you here. I think the artists are 0% culpable. But art is powerful and I don't think it's unreasonable to think an uptick in violence we're exposed to in media/entertainment could have an effect on people's real life behavior. I think people don't want to acknowledge that this is probably true because they assume you're inherently shifting responsibility to the artists in doing so. Not at all. I'm less interested in finding someone to blame than I am in objectively ID'ing problems and finding solutions.

if a parent feels that john wick or slipknot is negatively influencing their child, then by all means they should do something about it, on a localized, case by case basis. i don't think anyone was debating against that though? so, i have to ask what solution you're trying to find.

I wasn't debating anything when I made my initial post. All I did was point out that this stuff does have an effect and that it seems fairly obvious to me. People don't even engage in that conversation because they assume you're a Sunday school teacher shaking your fist at those rock n' rollers.

i'll engage in the conversation. of course art has an influence. the purpose is to engage and make you think and feel. we've all taken certain films or television shows or songs to heart. damaged and unstable people will take it to heart too, in their damaged and unstable way.

And that is a problem, though as I said earlier, the person who engages with the art is responsible.

It's a combination of desensitization to violence through exposure to it over your lifetime and a lack of socialization, particularly with the video games because nobody can do the same thing for longer periods of time than a person playing video games. The kid who is outside running around with his friends is less likely to end up in that headspace. But those kids are the minority now. Hell parents don't let their kids leave the house, they remember what they were up to when their own parents let them leave the house, but somehow can't see that going out, getting into trouble and socializing was good for them and built their character. Too much focus on being scared of your 15 year old knocking down a few beers and not enough on them sitting in their room all weekend.

this is not to say that i think it can't happen, but i've found, for myself at least, that fictional violence and harm has not really done much to desensitize me to actual real world violence or to be callous, numb to people being hurt or killed. so, based around my experience, it seems to indicate that something else is more at play, than just the amount of fictional violence consumed.

perhaps, keeping them stuck at home causes them to feel isolated and more indifferent, more uncaring about other people. again, you mentioned lack of socialization. that seems like the bigger factor. but this is just from my experience and my perception and how the art has affected me. everyone is going to be different, but there will still be commonality somewhere. especially when we're raised in the same country.

I feel more desensitized to violence but there are a lot of factors there and most of it is about the 24/7 news cycle and the way everything gets filmed now. And I don't think any of these kids wouldn't be shaken by violence if they were personally exposed to it. Like, if they see someone get shot, good chance it scares them straight. But at some point they lose grasp on just how ugly it all is, they're on another Call of Duty mission and they've shot a million things so it's no sweat for them.

Headhunter wrote: I feel more desensitized to violence but there are a lot of factors there and most of it is about the 24/7 news cycle and the way everything gets filmed now. And I don't think any of these kids wouldn't be shaken by violence if they were personally exposed to it. Like, if they see someone get shot, good chance it scares them straight. But at some point they lose grasp on just how ugly it all is, they're on another Call of Duty mission and they've shot a million things so it's no sweat for them.

yeah, news is reporting and showing real violence. that's not fictional, so i can understand seeing that over and over might play into becoming desensitized.

a lot of this is just a failure to take responsibility. parents not raising their kids, while also keeping them home, with a potential echo chamber in their pocket. not caring enough to take interest in their interests. and then refusing to take responsibility if/when they go wrong. as long as you can pass off your responsibility to some other factor, and it's validated at even the highest levels (trump putting the blame on video games as an example), then it's gonna be a hard road to curb the behavior.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote: I feel more desensitized to violence but there are a lot of factors there and most of it is about the 24/7 news cycle and the way everything gets filmed now. And I don't think any of these kids wouldn't be shaken by violence if they were personally exposed to it. Like, if they see someone get shot, good chance it scares them straight. But at some point they lose grasp on just how ugly it all is, they're on another Call of Duty mission and they've shot a million things so it's no sweat for them.

yeah, news is reporting and showing real violence. that's not fictional, so i can understand seeing that over and over might play into becoming desensitized.

a lot of this is just a failure to take responsibility. parents not raising their kids, while also keeping them home, with a potential echo chamber in their pocket. not caring enough to take interest in their interests. and then refusing to take responsibility if/when they go wrong. as long as you can pass off your responsibility to some other factor, and it's validated at even the highest levels (trump putting the blame on video games as an example), then it's gonna be a hard road to curb the behavior.

Sometimes it's almost an accumulation of a lot of choices parents make that don't individually seem harmful but over time have a cumulative effect.

The basic premise of "Guys with guns" represents likely 75% or more of my favorite movies and TV shows. It's been fantastic for me, probably not so great for a lot of these kids.

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote: I feel more desensitized to violence but there are a lot of factors there and most of it is about the 24/7 news cycle and the way everything gets filmed now. And I don't think any of these kids wouldn't be shaken by violence if they were personally exposed to it. Like, if they see someone get shot, good chance it scares them straight. But at some point they lose grasp on just how ugly it all is, they're on another Call of Duty mission and they've shot a million things so it's no sweat for them.

yeah, news is reporting and showing real violence. that's not fictional, so i can understand seeing that over and over might play into becoming desensitized.

a lot of this is just a failure to take responsibility. parents not raising their kids, while also keeping them home, with a potential echo chamber in their pocket. not caring enough to take interest in their interests. and then refusing to take responsibility if/when they go wrong. as long as you can pass off your responsibility to some other factor, and it's validated at even the highest levels (trump putting the blame on video games as an example), then it's gonna be a hard road to curb the behavior.

Sometimes it's almost an accumulation of a lot of choices parents make that don't individually seem harmful but over time have a cumulative effect.

The basic premise of "Guys with guns" represents likely 75% or more of my favorite movies and TV shows. It's been fantastic for me, probably not so great for a lot of these kids.

if it's not fantastic for those kids.. then whenever they see john wick or the matrix, remind them that the guy blowing people away in those films also used a phone booth to travel through time. fiction is fiction!

This Santa Clarita case seems to be one where the kid grew up around guns all his life, guns were easily accessible in the house and all he needed was the desire to hurt other people.

education about gun use and gun safety is also important. and giving a damn about your child's interests is even more important in an environment like that.

Headhunter wrote:This Santa Clarita case seems to be one where the kid grew up around guns all his life, guns were easily accessible in the house and all he needed was the desire to hurt other people.

It's his parents fault sounds like

Blaming guns is I'm sorry a cop out. It has nothing to do with guns its something else guns are just the scapegoat. Previous generations had the same if not more access to guns and this wasn't so prevalent it's a society change my guess the internet

Society has changed not guns

Nobody learns to deal with adversity anymore so everything is white or black

Japan has tons of violence in games, tv, film and magazines. Not tons of shootings. Your logic sucks.

showa58taro wrote:Japan has tons of violence in games, tv, film and magazines. Not tons of shootings. Your logic sucks.

no. parent and guardian responsibility in raising children and taking interest in their interests, and allowing them to be socialized is all very sound logic.