Video Game Violence and Racism

[JazzRemington]

According to wikibook's Introduction to Sociology (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Sociology/Deviance#Video_Games_and_Deviance):

"Finally, the video game explanation is also illustrative of social-conflict and racial discrimination. Seldom is the explanation of a black violent offender's behavior playing violent video games. The assumption is that black culture encourages violence; as a result, violent behavior by young black men is not "shocking," so it does not require a folk devil to explain it. This is, of course, discriminatory. In contrast, it is generally white, middle-class violent offenders whose behavior is explained by alleging a video game connection. The fact that these violent offenders are white and middle class threatens the "innocence and safety of suburban America," (p. 17) which means it requires a folk devil culprit, absolving white, middle-class America of the blame."

Is there any truth to this? It makes sense, especially since this is the case with gun or school violence.

[Emile Armand]

To some extent yes, however I think it is largely overplayed. Like when they released that one Resident Evil game (it was number five I think), they were trying to pass it off as racist because the game takes place in Africa and the majority of the zombies you have to kill are black (the main character is white) however in previous games there has been black on white violence as well, THEY'RE ZOMBIES.The game also had a much more diverse array of enemies than the people making these statements give them credit for. The company is not in any way encouraging white on black violence, if im not mistaken the other character fighting along side you (I think he/she might have been playable too?) was black. Besides the game is made in Japan. There is definitely racism portrayed in some games, as there is everywhere else, television etc. I just think in a lot of cases people blow things out of proportion.

[Hiratsuka]

Er, the Japanese can be racist.

I only recall video games being blamed for Columbine when the shooters were self-admitted FPS addicts. I realize it's brought up sometimes afterwards, but has it been routine?

[Foldered]

THEY'RE ZOMBIES.
It's pretty clear that the Resident Evil series always has, and always will be, prejudice towards Zombies.

[Jimmie Higgins]

According to wikibook's Introduction to Sociology (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Sociology/Deviance#Video_Games_and_Deviance):

"Finally, the video game explanation is also illustrative of social-conflict and racial discrimination. Seldom is the explanation of a black violent offender's behavior playing violent video games. The assumption is that black culture encourages violence; as a result, violent behavior by young black men is not "shocking," so it does not require a folk devil to explain it. This is, of course, discriminatory. In contrast, it is generally white, middle-class violent offenders whose behavior is explained by alleging a video game connection. The fact that these violent offenders are white and middle class threatens the "innocence and safety of suburban America," (p. 17) which means it requires a folk devil culprit, absolving white, middle-class America of the blame."

Is there any truth to this? It makes sense, especially since this is the case with gun or school violence.I'd say it's a good observation, but they have it upside-down. The point is not to "absolve" middle-class America, but to demonize black youth. The politicians and media sensationalize violence as part of the justification for increased repressive apparatus of the state (tougher sentencing, more cops, etc). The state uses the most overt repression in poor communities because the real role of the police is to make sure that the inequality that capitalism creates doesn't boil-over into revolts or riots or strikes.

So when sensational news stories come out, people naturally want to know why a shocking thing happened. The media does provide an explanation for violence by black and Latino and other minority groups: "they are savage sociopaths".

Well, usually they put it differently. The respectable "oh I'm not a racist" racists usually blame "black culture": glorification of "thug-behavior" and hip-hop culture. The pseudo-sociological code-word for "savage" is "super-criminal" which is the theory of children-sociopaths who can not be educated or reformed - they are too far gone and so society can only try and contain and control them. For the ruling class this neatly excuses away a whole host of systemic problems: failing inner-city schools (it's not under-funding and neglect, it's these kids who are thugs), the huge prison population, recidivism (it not that prisoners are set-up to fail when they are released, it's that they can't be reformed in the first place!), racial-profiling and so on.

But since better-off kids are not patrolled and targeted by the ruling class, there is less of a need to demonize them: crime is presented more often as an anomaly or "bad influence". Better-off kids are not patrolled in the same way because part of the systemic use of racism is to divide the working class and so racism and separate treatment for different groups keeps class anger from focusing on a common enemy.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

What I dislike about my social-sciences is their failure to utilize analytic methods. They have an hypothesis like "video games cause violence and racism." Then, they tell an elaborate story that "puts pieces of the puzzle together in a way that supports the view." It's no different than a capitalist creating elaborate explanations for why, in fact, "problem X was not the fault of a free market, but it was a restricted free market that is to blame." Without the pure science to back up claims, conjecture is not incredibly compelling.

There is some data, I suspect, but I believe it's been rather unsympathetic to the hypothesis. Despite this, people content to push their point on others. I have no problem with that, but it needs to be done properly by challenging data and utilizing more studies. The same issue occurs in gender studies, race studies, and a variety of other areas. Claims that "X presents Y badly so it must be hurting Y in reality" almost always appear to be unsupported by data. People appear to distinguish between reality and fiction fairly adeptly.

Now I do not entirely object to the process of taking a "problem" and putting pieces together to make the best explanation. That's part of science. However, doing so when there are methodologies available to collect hard data is rather inefficient. These people are arguably engaging in something similar to "having an incredibly plausible theory that the sun revolves around the Earth, receiving evidence to the contrary, and still clinging to the theory because it's just too compelling." It might be too compelling, such as not rejecting evolution if a small issue is found (though I don't know that any have been). However, there aren't a lot of strong arguments I've seen in favor of either of the phenomenon being connected to video game violence.

[WelshANTIFA]

The company is not in any way encouraging white on black violence, if im not mistaken the other character fighting along side you (I think he/she might have been playable too?) was black.

Interestingly enough, this character was added after all the controversy kicked off, pretty pathetic if you ask me! :rolleyes:

Does art imitate life or does life imitate art? It's a debate that's gone on for several years now. I think it works both ways and what really annoys me is the fact that when these tragedies such as the Columbine High School massacre occur, the media doesn't delve into their medical health history or even know the perpetrators but instead go straight to blaming violent video games. I was brought up in a fairly liberal household where I was able to play games which were pretty brutal; GTA, Resident Evil etc. but never did I do anything to harm people due to playing these types of games.

I think it's important to create a good balance with children as they grow up. If you restrict the child completely from games like this it becomes a taboo and therefore, naturally, they find the need to rebel against their parents and end up playing the game anyway, thus creating a sense of them wanting to let the world know that they've played it.

It's just my view on it all, if you restrict something from someone, they'll do everything and anything to gain access to it and let the world know that they have it.

[The Red Next Door]

Interestingly enough, this character was added after all the controversy kicked off, pretty pathetic if you ask me! :rolleyes:

Does art imitate life or does life imitate art? It's a debate that's gone on for several years now. I think it works both ways and what really annoys me is the fact that when these tragedies such as the Columbine High School massacre occur, the media doesn't delve into their medical health history or even know the perpetrators but instead go straight to blaming violent video games. I was brought up in a fairly liberal household where I was able to play games which were pretty brutal; GTA, Resident Evil etc. but never did I do anything to harm people due to playing these types of games.

I think it's important to create a good balance with children as they grow up. If you restrict the child completely from games like this it becomes a taboo and therefore, naturally, they find the need to rebel against their parents and end up playing the game anyway, thus creating a sense of them wanting to let the world know that they've played it.

It's just my view on it all, if you restrict something from someone, they'll do everything and anything to gain access to it and let the world know that they have it.


People just blame stuff on films and etc, to make up for shitty parenting.

[praxis1966]

People just blame stuff on films and etc, to make up for shitty parenting.

Exactly. I think in one way or another, a lot of this debate comes from the fact that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (aka the Columbine HS shooters) played the shit out of Doom 2. However, what did come out at the time (and in the long run didn't get a whole lot of attention) was the fact that the two of them didn't get a whole lot of parental supervision. They were building pipe bombs in their parents' garage for Chrissakes, and on top of that, neighbors actually overheard them talking about how much broken glass and nails to put in them as well as the sounds of breaking glass and nobody said a word. Further (and I'm a little hazy on the details since it was so long ago), I believe one of them had a counselor that attempted to notify either the parents or school officials that the kid could be dangerous and nobody did anything.


Does art imitate life or does life imitate art? It's a debate that's gone on for several years now. I think it works both ways and what really annoys me is the fact that when these tragedies such as the Columbine High School massacre occur, the media doesn't delve into their medical health history or even know the perpetrators but instead go straight to blaming violent video games. I was brought up in a fairly liberal household where I was able to play games which were pretty brutal; GTA, Resident Evil etc. but never did I do anything to harm people due to playing these types of games.

Very valid point. Yes, Harris and Klebold really liked violent video games. However, they also liked bowling. According to Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, the two of them actually went bowling the morning of their assault on Columbine High. Does that mean that bowling contributed to what they did? Certainly not. The most likely explanation is a perfect storm of gross oversight on the part of parents and school officials, bullying by classmates, and a predisposition toward psychological instability. The obsession with Doom 2 was a symptom of this disease rather than the disease itself, in my mind. The demonization of violent media is, IMO in this case at least, symptomatic of modern society's desire for quick fixes and easy explanations. Anyway, there are literally tens of millions of kids who play violent video games and watch violent movies every day who don't commit crimes, which is something for which the pro-censorship types can't account.

To address the OP, I think it's probably correct to suspect institutionalized racism as an explanation for the differences in perception. Shootings and stabbings do happen at schools where the population has a low socio-economic status. However, since the media seems to expect violence in these areas, they don't tend to cover the incidents (or at least not with the scrutiny that's given to incidents in more affluent areas). But I think that's only part of the story. The other part is that inner city school violence tends to be confined to one or two specifically targeted individuals, whereas in cases like Columbine and other suburban school shootings the tendency is toward indiscriminate slaughter.

[synthesis]

The point is not to "absolve" middle-class America, but to demonize black youth.

It can't be both?

[Adi Shankara]

FUN FACT: people in this article who say that video games don't influence kids into doing violent acts, love to blame religion for the very same reason (even though people are getting less religious as the years go by)

truth is, people will do whatever the hell it is they do; influence is overrated.

[#FF0000]

FUN FACT: people in this article who say that video games don't influence kids into doing violent acts, love to blame religion for the very same reason (even though people are getting less religious as the years go by)

truth is, people will do whatever the hell it is they do; influence is overrated.

While I don't think video games are gonna make a kid go out and fight or kill someone, I have to wonder how games influence worldview, e.g. to what extent does killing droves of bad guys desensitize people to violence.