223 replies to this topic

[Ricardo_C]

I don't think North Korea's nuclear capabilities are the worrisome thing, but rather the likelihood that their incompetence will result in a Chernobyl/Fukushima-type disaster, which would be worse than either, given the North's seeming lack of expertise in just about all related areas.

[garjones]

Which is true but what can you really do about it? The only method to stop them entirely is invasion and that increases the risk of that kind of fuck up or some rash action happening and nobody has the money or desire to attack them anyway.

All they've done for the past few decades is threaten, ease the threats and gets some money for being good boys and rinse and repeat. I think we need to call their bluff, it's a small and poor country. They could do damage, anyone could, 19 individuals removed a chunk of the centre of New York and the Pentagon. They spent 15 years building a high rise hotel nobody will ever stay in, just sit back and let them go bust.

All this 'axis of evil' stuff does is just give the latest Kim a hard on and make him think he's important.

[David Meadows]

Somebody just suggested that the failure might have been due to sabotage. It's a tempting thought, in a cool conspiracy-theory kind of way, but I'm not buying it. The nations most likely (South Korea) and able (the USA) to sabotage the rocket actually had a vested interest in the launch succeeding -- it's in their interests to keep people afraid of North Korea, not laughing at them.

[Ogul]

North Korea is on its last legs, they have no money, the system they follow has collapsed or been abandoned by every other country (whether they use the word Communist or not Vietnam, Laos, China and Cuba have embraced market economics because they have had to).

I saw a story where some group in South Korea just sent up some weather balloons set to drop pamphlets on North Korea, letting them know that for what their government spent on the failed rocket, they could have fed something like 20 million people for a year. I also saw some coverage that they got when all those journalists were invited in of their dirt farms, they are really pathetic. I just really feel bad for them, because some countries have nothing going for them and it makes sense that they're a mess, but NK is a mess almost deliberately. IF they just got along with South Korea they could be a solid economy in short order.

[Arjan Dirkse]

So Norwegian killer Anders Breivik apparently spent the whole year of 2006 playing computer games to prepare for his shooting rampage...

I don't know what the implications of this are, if there will be any. From what some psychologists who had done research into the effects of violent video games said on tv, it's possible that in some cases those games do make people more violent. I guess the whole moderation thing is the key here. Although Breivik apparently already made his plans before he started his Year of Virtual Slaughter.

[garjones]

I guess the whole moderation thing is the key here.

Yes I think so. The media will tend to like an easy target to blame and being immersed 17 hours a day in a violent game is not healthy for anyone.

I remember when Michael Ryan in the UK went on a killing spree they found a copy of Rambo and a Dungeons and Dragons game in his house and made assumptions they caused his behaviour. My mother pointed out she was a chapel deacon in her 60s and had the complete works of Crowley, Lovecraft, The Wicker Man and Straw Dogs in her collection, oh and Rambo and a D&D book (although the D&D book was mine).

[steveuk]

So Norwegian killer Anders Breivik apparently spent the whole year of 2006 playing computer games to prepare for his shooting rampage...

I don't know what the implications of this are, if there will be any. From what some psychologists who had done research into the effects of violent video games said on tv, it's possible that in some cases those games do make people more violent. I guess the whole moderation thing is the key here. Although Breivik apparently already made his plans before he started his Year of Virtual Slaughter.

The implications are that his defence team are doing their job.

As Gar says, we've heard this before and no doubt we'll hear it again.

I don't think North Korea's nuclear capabilities are the worrisome thing, but rather the likelihood that their incompetence will result in a Chernobyl/Fukushima-type disaster, which would be worse than either, given the North's seeming lack of expertise in just about all related areas.

Actually that's not what worries me about North Korea. Not that it couldn't happen, but its not my biggest concern.

What worries me is what happens when they finally implode as a nation?

I'm concerned about options like a civil war and even a last, desperate grab for resources from the south but more than anything I worry that they'll topple the leadership and beg for western assistance.

What they'll get is a lot of Chinese money and a boatload of American economists. The Chinese money will reinforce the Chinese control over the region and the economists will push for hard measure to balance the books.

In the short term life may even get worse for North Koreans and in the long term the power shift in the region will move the balance of global economics even further in China's favour.

Unless I'm missing something from the equation?

[Arjan Dirkse]

Still, I'm very weary of video games that trivilialize murder. They may not be the main cause in turning people bugfucking crazy. But an obsession with them could be unhealthy. There's a responsibility for parents I think to make sure kids don't get carried away with them.

[garjones]

Still, I'm very weary of video games that trivilialize murder. They may not be the main cause in turning people bugfucking crazy. But an obsession with them could be unhealthy. There's a responsibility for parents I think to make sure kids don't get carried away with them.

I agree but an interesting argument raised by the man from the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) the other day was all about what is deemed acceptable and what is not and the case of realistic violence v cartoon violence. They poll the public to get to their conclusions and aim for a consensus and they report that they are more comfortable with deaths that show no blood over realistic violence that may be more sobering but also more graphic.

John Mosby complained that America's Got Powers had profanity it didn't need and could remove a family audience, I think the violence did that anyway, at 12A or PG13 Hugh Jackman as Wolverine can say 'fuck' anyway. He doesn't in the comics and if he did it would be rated 17+.

[Arjan Dirkse]

I agree but an interesting argument raised by the man from the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) the other day was all about what is deemed acceptable and what is not and the case of realistic violence v cartoon violence. They poll the public to get to their conclusions and aim for a consensus and they report that they are more comfortable with deaths that show no blood over realistic violence that may be more sobering but also more graphic.

True...I don't know what is "better" in this regard, realistic violence vs unrealistic or cartoon-like violence. Of course Breivik is a case that isn't representative of the majority of people, so it's better not to draw to draw any conlusions about how people react to games on his case.


And I agree, polling the public doesn't make a lot of sense. It should be a matter of academic research more than anything else. Of course depictions of violence in themselves don't cause people to become violent, but it is one of many components that go into our education and upbringing. I guess the mindset people have when they start playing some videogame or watching some horror movie or Tom and Jerry cartoon is as important as anything.

[Ulf Imwiehe]

I don’t know, it sounds like Breivik simply tries to spin his many failures as a business man, as well as all the time he spent playing RPGs when he didn’t have anything else to do, into this diabolic sabbatical during which he honed himself into some kind of Nordic killing machine. The guy likes to present himself as this super intelligent elite right wing crusader but prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh keeps punching holes into his façade left right and center.

What I find noteworthy and alarming is how closely his nationalist rhetoric resembles that of, dare I say, “mainstream” European right-wingers like Wilders, Sarrazin or Le Pen. This is what parlor fascism in action looks like. Breivik took it to the extreme but the hateful message is the same.

[Arjan Dirkse]

I don’t know, it sounds like Breivik simply tries to spin his many failures as a business man, as well as all the time he spent playing RPGs when he didn’t have anything else to do, into this diabolic sabbatical during which he honed himself into some kind of Nordic killing machine. The guy likes to present himself as this super intelligent elite right wing crusader but prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh keeps punching holes into his façade left right and center.

I think there coudl be a lot of truth in that. The origin of evil is often pretty banal. Of course Breivik is a lunatic, probably had an unhappy childhood and he was frustrated by the failures in his life, and all of that caused him to start developing this delusional idea that he was a modern Templar Knight. Still his bad case of the crazies doesn't mean he isn't reponsible for his actions of course.

He does like to portray himself as an intellectual. But his entire worldview is googled together, from the pathetic websites he were led to while doing a search for "muslims evil", "liberal conspiracy", or any terms like that.

What I find noteworthy and alarming is how closely his nationalist rhetoric resembles that of, dare I say, “mainstream” European right-wingers like Wilders, Sarrazin or Le Pen. This is what parlor fascism in action looks like. Breivik took it to the extreme but the hateful message is the same.

I'm not sure Breivik is a product of that political movement. Wilders, as much as I disagree with his views, is pretty far from the violent ideas of lone wolves like Breivik or neo nazi groups.

[Ulf Imwiehe]

I'm not sure Breivik is a product of that political movement. Wilders, as much as I disagree with his views, is pretty far from the violent ideas of lone wolves like Breivik or neo nazi groups.

Who knows, maybe Breivik's political stance is as much part of his fantasy world as the Knights Templar bullshit. Still, Breivik’s case (and the case of the German Neo-Nazi terror cell NSU to name another example) shows what can happen when the seed of xenophobia germinates. That right wing shit about the supposed menace of multiculturalism has become an acceptable part of the political discourse in some European countries. In such a climate, where you can project your fears or shortcomings on those who are different or foreign or whatever, some people like Breivik or the NSU will put their convictions into action.

[Ogul]

What I find noteworthy and alarming is how closely his nationalist rhetoric resembles that of, dare I say, “mainstream” European right-wingers like Wilders, Sarrazin or Le Pen. This is what parlor fascism in action looks like. Breivik took it to the extreme but the hateful message is the same.

Yeah, I would imagine that his exposure to political speech played a much larger role in his activities than any videogame ever could have.

[Arjan Dirkse]

Possibly, of course. But I don't believe you can separate it that easily. Breivik is a product of all the things that were his life. He was obsessed by violence, and those games were possibly a factor which stimulated that. I know it's not fashionable to be concerned about the influence of video games, but it's something that has needs to be researched.

Scientists seem to think there is some kind of correlation. Tristan van der Vlis, the guy who killed six people in a shooting rampage here in my home town last year, played Modern Warfare 2 quite obsessively, like Breivik. Even if the games don't cause or exacerbate those tendencies it should set off a warning when someone is playing obsessively.

[Ogul]

Possibly, of course. But I don't believe you can separate it that easily. Breivik is a product of all the things that were his life. He was obsessed by violence, and those games were possibly a factor which stimulated that. I know it's not fashionable to be concerned about the influence of video games, but it's something that has needs to be researched.

And yet millions of people play violent videogames, while global violence has been on a downwards trend ever since videogames have existed. There are violent, nutso people in the world. Fact. There are violent videogames. Fact. These two facts have no more to do with each other than that the killers probably also drank water and breathed air.

Scientists seem to think there is some kind of correlation. Tristan van der Vlis, the guy who killed six people in a shooting rampage here in my home town last year, played Modern Warfare 2 quite obsessively, like Breivik. Even if the games don't cause or exacerbate those tendencies it should set off a warning when someone is playing obsessively.

Only that they should make sure to stay well hydrated and take enough potty breaks. "Scientists" only think there's a correlation when a lawyer's paycheck says there is.

[Arjan Dirkse]

"Scientists" only think there's a correlation when a lawyer's paycheck says there is.

Does that sweeping condemnation of science also inform your view on global warming, and things like evolution.

[Ogul]

Does that sweeping condemnation of science also inform your view on global warming, and things like evolution.

Only when they work for the oil and gas industry. I'm not skeptical of scientists in general, just ones that work for lawyers.

[Christian U]

Either way, scientific research has delivered all kinds of different results where the videogames thing, some studies saying it doesn't have a negative influence at all, some saying it does. There's no conclusive evidence yet, which, given how many people would like to think videogames have a clear influence I think makes it likely that the influence, if anything, is minor. At least where violent behaviour is concerned; that playing video-games all day is not healthy for the teenage mind should be obvious enough.

And yet millions of people play violent videogames, while global violence has been on a downwards trend ever since videogames have existed. There are violent, nutso people in the world. Fact. There are violent videogames. Fact. These two facts have no more to do with each other than that the killers probably also drank water and breathed air.

Well, violent killers may like violent games better than other people, but there's the question of causality of course: does the fact that these are violent people make them more likely to play these games or is it the other way round? If you're obsessed with violence, obviously you'll be more interested in playing Grand Theft Auto than Mario Kart. That doesn't mean that you're any more likely to be violent if you play Grand Theft Auto in general (uh, actually, I suppose statistically it would, but I'm talking about the individual psychological level), and it is very unlikely to be helpful if you try to look at violent video-games as a warning sign. That's what they did after Colombine, blaming Marilyn Manson and whatnot, and putting kids who wrote violent short stories on trial. Just nonsense.

It is not a big leap, on the other hand, to not be surprised if someone who is going down a very bad psychological spiral won't be helped by being completely isolated from people around him (which you are when you spend all of your time playing video games).

[Ogul]

Well, violent killers may like violent games better than other people, but there's the question of causality of course:

It hasn't even been established that violent people like violent games more than anyone else. I mean, in an average year probably around 4-5 million copies of violent games are sold in the US alone (and I'm lowballing here based on a few recent games), and yet there are very few acts of massive violence, fewer still that involve gamers. Some violent killers play videogames. Some don't. Some that play videogames are violent killers, the overwhelming majority are not. I'm sure that there are violent killers that drink soda, that doesn't mean that soda is the cause of their violent behavior, or even that they enjoy soda because they are violent people.

It is not a big leap, on the other hand, to not be surprised if someone who is going down a very bad psychological spiral won't be helped by being completely isolated from people around him (which you are when you spend all of your time playing video games).

Perhaps, but many games have at least an element of community to them, and who knows what else he would be doing if not gaming. Would it be healthier for him to be building ships in bottles than playing Battlefield?