Who agrees with Jessica?

[HordHolm]

I'm so sorry. You're far too subtle for me.

Are you being deliberately adversarial? Part of my original comment read:

Will violent imagery spark a violent reaction in someone pre-disposed to violence? Perhaps.

You then quote the above, but leave off the answer 'perhaps' (which is immediately self-serving on your part) and go on to question my opinion when the answer 'perhaps' already indicates I don't know. And then you imply that I'm stupid with your smug reply quoted above.

But perhaps you need it spelled out... your following question:

Do you believe neonates are born to violence? If not, when do they become disposed to violence, how and why?

My answer: firstly, I don't know, perhaps they are born to violence. My understanding is that nobody knows, regardless of the depth of their education in the field. Many specialists have opinions, of course (one can hardly be a specialist without one). As for the second part of your question, well, it logically follows from the first, does it not, that if nobody can give an unequivocal answer as to whether a person is born to violence, then nobody can give an unequivocal answer as to when someone might become disposed to violence? Because we have no way of knowing, when subject A commits an act of violence, whether that act comes from nature or nurture. It depends on the person might be the very boring but rational answer.

Of course, all this really does is sidestep my original point, that this all comes across as yet another set of steps in that old, old battle: moral panic vs freedom of the individual. There is no definitive answer, merely opinions; which are like arseholes, as the old saying goes.

 

[SimonDoom]

The increase in violent crime is obvious.

Cagivagurl

It's not. In the United States, the violent crime rate has gone down significantly since 1990. The rise of the Internet and the increasing availability of violent movies, violent video games as well as sexually pornographic material has NOT led to a demonstrable rise in violence. Is it possible that these materials sometimes inspire violence? Sure. But the evidence we have does not appear to prove a general effect.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

I'm gonna be perfectly honest here. I have a problem with the discussion as a whole... but I really have a problem with "psychologists" using their occupation as some kind of magic reinforcer for their opinion.

There's a reason why psychologists specialize. You wouldn't ask a child psychologist to help you through an alcohol addiction. Likewise, you shouldn't ask a psychologist who specializes in working with abuse victims and wrote her dissertation on victim blaming about her opinion on how children are affected by violent media. I'm sorry, but unless the good doctor omitted something in her bio, she simply lacks the expertise to counter what all the child psychologists say.

These discussions pop up regularly, and, on the surface, most arguments made on this topic as well make sense. But there's a rather important part missing:

Killing a person is hard. And, in most cases, it's rather messy.

Ever read those headlines about how someone stabbed their victim dozens of times? That's usually taken as proof of how deranged/distressed/emotional the attacker was. But, honestly, in most cases, the victim HAD to be stabbed that many times, because the human body is surprisingly resilient. When police officers approach a suspect they shot in the head with their guns drawn, that's because it's not unheard of for someone who's been shot in the head to stand back up and ask their shooter what the hell that was for.

So, imagine the scene. You start stabbing someone with the intent to kill. The victim is bleeding, suffering, screaming, pleading... but you just keep going. HOW can you just keep going? HOW can you just ignore the pleading and suffering? HOW can you just ignore the onsetting realization that the person you're attacking is not going to be around tomorrow?

You want to tell me that's possible simply because you saw it in movies? Or because you played GTA V? That's not how human brains work. And that's why, as is mentioned in the article OP linked, most psychologists believe that violent games and TV shows DON'T turn kids into murder-hungry psychopaths, but that there was something wrong with their heads from the beginning.

The good doctor goes so far as to argue that "Kids copy so much from online media: fashion, make-up tutorials, TikTok dances, accents, phrases, slurs and beliefs. And, in the wake of Brianna’s horrific stabbing – I would argue murder and violence, too.". But there's a difference between copying a dance or fashion sense, and losing all empathy for fellow human beings.

Or, to say it as simple as possible: How curious were you about the taste of human excrement after Two Girls One Cup came out? After all, that trailer was EVERYWHERE for ages! Reddit, 4chan, Facebook, you name it. You could not use the internet without seeing references to that video.

 

[SimonDoom]

A few other things:

1. In the article cited by XerXesXu, there's no mention of whether other factors might have contributed to the teens' desire to kill. There might have been family problems, abuse, isolation, mistreatment by peers in school--we don't know because the article doesn't delve into that. In most cases I've read about murderers, there were far more serious factors than access to violent/sexual material that were the prime causal factors. In most cases I've read it's not at all clear that the access to the materials was a factor at all. One has to be careful about making assumptions about cause and effect.

2. The article mentioned that the teens had sought out "dark materials" ("films") on the Web. There is some pretty horrific stuff on the Web, if you look for it. I don't think anything at Literotica would qualify as "dark material." Now and then some stuff gets by that appears to violate Lit's nonconsent rules, but that's about it.

3. As I pointed out, the article said the teens had watched "films" of dark material, not that they read stories. I think we should be cautious about assuming that erotic stories can have effects similar to those of films or videos or other visual imagery. I don't know this for a fact, but it seems unlikely that they do. I suspect, first, that the readership is more self-selecting. Many criminals have low intelligence and are unlikely to seek written stories as a source of entertainment. I doubt--I don't know this, but I doubt--that stories have the same triggering potential as films and pictures and videos.

I've had millions of readers at Literotica, and thousands of comments. I have never once received a comment that indicated that a reader was triggered by something I wrote, or in fact was influenced to do anything in the real world because of something I wrote. It's possible, but I have no evidence or reason to believe this is the case.

 

[XerXesXu]

Are you being deliberately adversarial? Part of my original comment read:


You then quote the above, but leave off the answer 'perhaps' (which is immediately self-serving on your part) and go on to question my opinion when the answer 'perhaps' already indicates I don't know. And then you imply that I'm stupid with your smug reply quoted above.

But perhaps you need it spelled out... your following question:


My answer: firstly, I don't know, perhaps they are born to violence. My understanding is that nobody knows, regardless of the depth of their education in the field. Many specialists have opinions, of course (one can hardly be a specialist without one). As for the second part of your question, well, it logically follows from the first, does it not, that if nobody can give an unequivocal answer as to whether a person is born to violence, then nobody can give an unequivocal answer as to when someone might become disposed to violence? Because we have no way of knowing, when subject A commits an act of violence, whether that act comes from nature or nurture. It depends on the person might be the very boring but rational answer.

Of course, all this really does is sidestep my original point, that this all comes across as yet another set of steps in that old, old battle: moral panic vs freedom of the individual. There is no definitive answer, merely opinions; which are like arseholes, as the old saying goes.

No. I didn't see how the 'perhaps' answers my question:

Quote: 'Will violent imagery spark a violent reaction in someone pre-disposed to violence? Perhaps. Will such imagery provoke a wider violent reaction, moral degradation and the end of the world as we know it? I don't buy it.'

You'll see that your statement took it as a given that the subject was predisposed to violence, my question specifically does not take it as a given. That was the point of the question.

All water under the bridge now and you've kindly answered my question - you don't know.

I note your observation that you don't buy that imagery will provoke a wider violent, moral degradation and the end of the world as we know it. My interest is in whether imagery and words can provoke a violent reaction, moral degradation and the end of an individual as we know them.

 

[HordHolm]

I note your observation that you don't buy that imagery will provoke a wider violent, moral degradation and the end of the world as we know it. My interest is in whether imagery and words can provoke a violent reaction, moral degradation and the end of an individual as we know them.

Such questions relating to the individual have a tedious habit of being applied to the whole by people with an axe to grind and an opportunity to parlay that into a personal benefit: see the controversies I already mentioned, and add in random Satanic panics, recovered memory shenanigans, etc.

Furthermore, as we can't be sure of the starting point in any given individual, the best we will be doing is guessing/relying on extremely imperfect self-reporting (see Ted Bundy's infamous 'porn made me do it' interview, for example) when it comes to said individual. Or the prejudices of specialists and experts called to give opinions. In short, we don't have the information necessary to come to any reliable conclusion. So... perhaps.

I'd also add that probably the pre-disposition to violence is unlikely to be zero-sum, but is rather likely to be on a spectrum - how many people are truly non-violent? If you push anyone there will probably be a point at which they can be provoked to violence. Does that mean they seek to initiate violence? Maybe not, but the reality is likely that, as humans, we all have violence within us to a certain point (levels vary according to the individual). What can act as a catalyst for a display of said violence? Probably many things, some of which we might define as valid, others as invalid. Does that mean we should stop any activity that could conceivably lead to a violent act being committed by an unknown individual at some undetermined future point? Nope, because then we wouldn't do anything at all, as we would have no way of knowing which act or activity might provoke a violent reaction in another individual. Add in that what might provoke a violent reaction in any given individual today might not provoke the same reaction in them tomorrow and all we have is a mess of 'probably, possibly, dunno,' etc. Basically, nobody can tell, and anyone who says they can is probably lying.

 

[XerXesXu]

A few other things:

1. In the article cited by XerXesXu, there's no mention of whether other factors might have contributed to the teens' desire to kill. There might have been family problems, abuse, isolation, mistreatment by peers in school--we don't know because the article doesn't delve into that. In most cases I've read about murderers, there were far more serious factors than access to violent/sexual material that were the prime causal factors. In most cases I've read it's not at all clear that the access to the materials was a factor at all. One has to be careful about making assumptions about cause and effect.

2. The article mentioned that the teens had sought out "dark materials" ("films") on the Web. There is some pretty horrific stuff on the Web, if you look for it. I don't think anything at Literotica would qualify as "dark material." Now and then some stuff gets by that appears to violate Lit's nonconsent rules, but that's about it.

3. As I pointed out, the article said the teens had watched "films" of dark material, not that they read stories. I think we should be cautious about assuming that erotic stories can have effects similar to those of films or videos or other visual imagery. I don't know this for a fact, but it seems unlikely that they do. I suspect, first, that the readership is more self-selecting. Many criminals have low intelligence and are unlikely to seek written stories as a source of entertainment. I doubt--I don't know this, but I doubt--that stories have the same triggering potential as films and pictures and videos.

I've had millions of readers at Literotica, and thousands of comments. I have never once received a comment that indicated that a reader was triggered by something I wrote, or in fact was influenced to do anything in the real world because of something I wrote. It's possible, but I have no evidence or reason to believe this is the case.

You'll have to wait 'til 4th Feb to find out. All the grisly details will be trawled over in mitigation by counsel and can be reported by the press and the judge will pass sentence, setting out all matters of which she's required to take account. The forensic psychologist says that both Defendants came from good homes, but that may change.

I remember on a previous occasion this subject was discussed you asked what masturbation had to do with it. There were two live threads on Lit discussing how and when authors masturbated when writing and reading stories. Do you accept that real people in the real world are triggered to masturbate by what you write?

You may not recall this either, but I had a specialism in mental health law and represented violent and sex offenders seeking discharge from special hospitals or parole from prison, and was able to confirm that they did circulate written accounts of violent and perverse sexual fantasies amongst themselves to use as wank fodder.

 

[SimonDoom]

I remember on a previous occasion this subject was discussed you asked what masturbation had to do with it. There were two live threads on Lit discussing how and when authors masturbated when writing and reading stories. Do you accept that real people in the real world are triggered to masturbate by what you write?

We're talking about apples and oranges. I know for a fact that people respond to erotic stories in the form of liking or not liking them, and I know that some masturbate to them, because they tell me that they do. There's no logical or empirical basis to infer that because people masturbate to a story that they are likely to act out on the content of the story in the real world by imitating what happens in the story. These are two completely different things. It might be true, but we would need evidence to have any confidence that it's true.

You may not recall this either, but I had a specialism in mental health law and represented violent and sex offenders seeking discharge from special hospitals or parole from prison, and was able to confirm that they did circulate written accounts of violent and perverse sexual fantasies amongst themselves to use as wank fodder.

The question is one of cause and effect. It makes perfect sense to me that people convicted of these crimes or in hospitals because of these crimes might seek out material to continue to play out their dark fantasies. That doesn't in any way prove, and isn't even really at all probative of, the theory that access to the material in the first place was a significant cause of the crimes they committed. It seems likely to me that this gets cause and effect backwards. I don't know for certain, of course, but the burden of proof rests with the person making the cause and effect claim.

For instance, I can imagine that convicted sex offenders in a prison might have a higher incidence of seeking out Lolita from the prison library, assuming it was available, which it probably wouldn't be. Does that in any way tend to prove that access to Lolita makes one more likely to be a sex offender? Of course not. That's a logical fallacy. It gets cause and effect backwards.

 

[NoTalentHack]

You mean that because we were raised in the 70s on Adam West's Batman we settled things in the schoolyard with our fists, but kids that are raised today on Grand Theft Auto settle things with daddy's 9mm?

Hmm. There may be something to that.

Except they don’t. The data shows exactly the opposite. Violent crime and per capita murder rates dropped over the period from the mid-90s until the pandemic, where it’s blipped back up a bit.

 

[ronde]

The question is one of cause and effect. It makes perfect sense to me that people convicted of these crimes or in hospitals because of these crimes might seek out material to continue to play out their dark fantasies. That doesn't in any way prove, and isn't even really at all probative of, the theory that access to the material in the first place was a significant cause of the crimes they committed. It seems likely to me that this gets cause and effect backwards. I don't know for certain, of course, but the burden of proof rests with the person making the cause and effect claim.

For instance, I can imagine that convicted sex offenders in a prison might have a higher incidence of seeking out Lolita from the prison library, assuming it was available, which it probably wouldn't be. Does that in any way tend to prove that access to Lolita makes one more likely to be a sex offender? Of course not. That's a logical fallacy. It gets cause and effect backwards.

This is the common confusion between correlation and causation. Given a small enough sample size and ignoring all other factual data, it's possible to correlate almost anything to almost anything else. The correlation in no way implies causation. Examples:

More than half of marriages end in death, therefore, unless you want to die, you shouldn't get married.
Many women who enter hospitals leave with a baby, therefore, unless she wants children, a woman should never go to the hospital.
Every person who has ever died has drunk water, therefore, drinking water causes death and should be avoided at all cost.

 

[XerXesXu]

We're talking about apples and oranges. I know for a fact that people respond to erotic stories in the form of liking or not liking them, and I know that some masturbate to them, because they tell me that they do. There's no logical or empirical basis to infer that because people masturbate to a story that they are likely to act out on the content of the story in the real world by imitating what happens in the story. These are two completely different things. It might be true, but we would need evidence to have any confidence that it's true.



The question is one of cause and effect. It makes perfect sense to me that people convicted of these crimes or in hospitals because of these crimes might seek out material to continue to play out their dark fantasies. That doesn't in any way prove, and isn't even really at all probative of, the theory that access to the material in the first place was a significant cause of the crimes they committed. It seems likely to me that this gets cause and effect backwards. I don't know for certain, of course, but the burden of proof rests with the person making the cause and effect claim.

For instance, I can imagine that convicted sex offenders in a prison might have a higher incidence of seeking out Lolita from the prison library, assuming it was available, which it probably wouldn't be. Does that in any way tend to prove that access to Lolita makes one more likely to be a sex offender? Of course not. That's a logical fallacy. It gets cause and effect backwards.

Apples and Oranges? No. You seem to accept that you intend to, and do, trigger behaviour in the real world. You accept that your readers masturbate because they admit to it. You haven’t asked them eg: ‘Do you act out my fantasies also. Have you ever stuffed a stuffed toy?’ You have to rely on their self-reports. Your ‘study’ is observational, hold on to that.

Was ‘X’ the Primary Cause, Immediate Cause, or a Condition Precedent? Like most things, causality is complicated.

The invocation of ‘correlation is not causation’ isn’t helpful. Correlation may be high or low, a P value is neither here nor there, it can neither prove nor disprove causation. The causal contribution of ‘X’ can only be determined by partitioning the variance. You may or may not understand the difference between an experimental and an observational study, but the study of violent and sexual offenders is observational, not experimental, it can’t be done experimentally. Be careful not to ask for the impossible.

Professionals working with sex and violent offenders, seeking to manage the offenders and protect others from harm, must make observations and infer causal relations. Gary Glitter and Venables weren’t recalled to prison on a caprice, they were recalled because they started to access materials of the type that they were convicted of acting out in real life. Do you believe that highly qualified professionals don’t understand what you understand - that care must be taken to determine the direction of causality?

Many people believe that religious, political and other texts have made them what they are, and that texts have influenced others to act, for good or evil. Today, a Cardinal in the Catholic Church has denounced the Pope as an ‘agent of Satan.’ The Pope believes it was God whispering in his ear. How would you prove which is correct? Is it God what done it, or the Devil?

Would you deny that their reading matter has heavily influenced both the Cardinal and the Pope and been causal in determining their beliefs and their actions?

 

[RejectReality]

Reading the astounding false equivalencies presented here as an argument for censoring creators makes me want to bash my head against the desk. The authorities will be along shortly to take you into custody for inciting self-harm.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Are you being deliberately adversarial? Part of my original comment read:


You then quote the above, but leave off the answer 'perhaps' (which is immediately self-serving on your part) and go on to question my opinion when the answer 'perhaps' already indicates I don't know. And then you imply that I'm stupid with your smug reply quoted above.

But perhaps you need it spelled out... your following question:


My answer: firstly, I don't know, perhaps they are born to violence. My understanding is that nobody knows, regardless of the depth of their education in the field. Many specialists have opinions, of course (one can hardly be a specialist without one). As for the second part of your question, well, it logically follows from the first, does it not, that if nobody can give an unequivocal answer as to whether a person is born to violence, then nobody can give an unequivocal answer as to when someone might become disposed to violence? Because we have no way of knowing, when subject A commits an act of violence, whether that act comes from nature or nurture. It depends on the person might be the very boring but rational answer.

Of course, all this really does is sidestep my original point, that this all comes across as yet another set of steps in that old, old battle: moral panic vs freedom of the individual. There is no definitive answer, merely opinions; which are like arseholes, as the old saying goes.

When you say "Moral panic vs freedom of the individual" you are turning it into a binary, false choice.
Not every issue is a "moral panic" and trying to discredit other people's opinion with that kind of labeling isn't helpful.

Society draws lines all the time. I don't think we should ban violent imagery, but certainly there is a reasonable argument to be made that we should restrict children's access to it. That isn't "moral panic", it's a matter of using the precautionary principle.
Kids are being exposed to graphic imagery with a frequency and realness that is unprecedented. We don't know the long term implications of that, so isn't it reasonable to proceed with caution where they are concerned?

 

[Voboy]

Yeah, no.

I don't think I agree with Jessica.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Yeah, no.

I don't think I agree with Jessica.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/535/091/d97.jpg

 

[ronde]

Apples and Oranges? No. You seem to accept that you intend to, and do, trigger behaviour in the real world. You accept that your readers masturbate because they admit to it. You haven’t asked them eg: ‘Do you act out my fantasies also. Have you ever stuffed a stuffed toy?’ You have to rely on their self-reports. Your ‘study’ is observational, hold on to that.

Was ‘X’ the Primary Cause, Immediate Cause, or a Condition Precedent? Like most things, causality is complicated.

The invocation of ‘correlation is not causation’ isn’t helpful. Correlation may be high or low, a P value is neither here nor there, it can neither prove nor disprove causation. The causal contribution of ‘X’ can only be determined by partitioning the variance. You may or may not understand the difference between an experimental and an observational study, but the study of violent and sexual offenders is observational, not experimental, it can’t be done experimentally. Be careful not to ask for the impossible.

Professionals working with sex and violent offenders, seeking to manage the offenders and protect others from harm, must make observations and infer causal relations. Gary Glitter and Venables weren’t recalled to prison on a caprice, they were recalled because they started to access materials of the type that they were convicted of acting out in real life. Do you believe that highly qualified professionals don’t understand what you understand - that care must be taken to determine the direction of causality?

Many people believe that religious, political and other texts have made them what they are, and that texts have influenced others to act, for good or evil. Today, a Cardinal in the Catholic Church has denounced the Pope as an ‘agent of Satan.’ The Pope believes it was God whispering in his ear. How would you prove which is correct? Is it God what done it, or the Devil?

Would you deny that their reading matter has heavily influenced both the Cardinal and the Pope and been causal in determining their beliefs and their actions?

I'm not sure what this has to do with writing erotica and publishing it on Lit, other than some seem to believe any mention of sex could possibly create a monster who roams about sexually abusing people.

It seems to me that your reply to SimonDoom only serves to confirm his reply about "apples and oranges". He didn't say that content of a book or movie couldn't initiate an action by an individual. He only stated that he believes people convicted of various crimes might be inclined to re-enact those crimes through literature. You have said as much by stating that correlation can be very high without proving anything, which is exactly what SimonDoom was saying.

I think we could all agree that religious and political texts have shaped our lives in one form or another. There is a huge difference between the Pope and a sexual predator, and that difference is the human characteristic of logical reasoning. Some might consider it to be a stretch to believe in a supreme being or a man who is the human image of that supreme being. Some might consider socialism to be the perfect life to live. There are logical arguments to be made for both. There can be no logical arguments to be made for sexual predators and serial killers other than that they were born that way. The observational studies of which you speak seem to bear that out, as almost all those who commit these crimes have shown those traits even as far back as childhood.

As SimonDoom and others have pointed out, the fact that a psychologist identifies some book or movie as the "trigger" that sets off a particular person does not mean that we should throw the baby out with the bath water as it were. It only means that a few people are predisposed to activities of that sort and that reading something could possible enhance their activities. Blaming that supposed "trigger" for the actions of those individuals is only clouding the real problem out of misguided sympathy or other emotion, or because we don't yet understand why those people are like they are and therefore we have no better "logical" reason. That reason is no reason to ban literature, video games, and movies that some use for the purpose of obtaining a little manual ecstasy from time to time. There should be some safeguards for children too young to really understand, but almost adults can easily separate reality from fantasy.

 

[TheRedChamber]

There is a huge difference between the Pope and a sexual predator

"Eh, I'm not saying the Pope is a pedophile, but I wouldn't say exactly he's anti-pedophilia either."
- Frankie Boyle

 

[HordHolm]

When you say "Moral panic vs freedom of the individual" you are turning it into a binary, false choice.
Not every issue is a "moral panic" and trying to discredit other people's opinion with that kind of labeling isn't helpful.

Society draws lines all the time. I don't think we should ban violent imagery, but certainly there is a reasonable argument to be made that we should restrict children's access to it. That isn't "moral panic", it's a matter of using the precautionary principle.
Kids are being exposed to graphic imagery with a frequency and realness that is unprecedented. We don't know the long term implications of that, so isn't it reasonable to proceed with caution where they are concerned?

When I was a kid I remember watching the news. This was back when the Provisional IRA were ramping up their campaign post Bloody Sunday (so, 1972/73). As a five year old that was very scary. There was footage of shops blowing up after streets had been cleared, this kind of thing. Remember, this was fifty years ago. When I was a teenager, thus forty years ago, there was Rambo/The Omen/The Shining, etc (easily accessed, despite age restrictions). Because basically everyone had VHS and this stuff circulated either on legally bought or pirated tapes. There was porn, too. This wasn't at the click of a finger, but it wasn't too far away from that. And interestingly, it was a more generally violent time, despite what the media would have us believe. Violent crime has generally declined since then.

As regards a false binary... I use that not to discredit someone's belief (though I find the general idea put forward unscientific). What concerns me is the habit of supposed experts and cultural commentators putting forward unverified ideas with the purpose of restricting the abilities of individuals to exert choice. We have innumerable instances of this stretching back past the Industrial Revolution - I have noted some of them in other posts on this thread, so I'm not to keen to list them all here, but some classes of these include the opening up of forms of transport, the availability of forms of media (cinema, radio, comic books, tv), and cultural influences, particularly music. These have all attracted exactly the kind of hysteria we are witnessing here (not exactly in this thread, but in a wider sense).

Over the last 15 years or so there have been precisely the same "end of the world as we know it" kind of arguments put forward about content on the Internet, and particularly social media, as there were back when women could first buy bicycles in the 1880s or kids could first spend their money on Flash Gordon comics in the 1930s. And part of the restrictive debate always, as regular as clockwork, puts forward that 'won't someone think about the children' argument. Again and again it happens, and yet again and again the world doesn't end. It happens with such regularity that one is forced to question the motivation of those putting forward those arguments - are they really simply afraid of change? Are they in a media influenced echo chamber? Are they unable to look for credible evidence and thus settle on 'my gut tells me'? Or do they have an ulterior motive? I suggest that some of them do.

We have a wealth of evidence of certain individuals attempting, and sometimes succeeding, in turning such panics into personal advantage. I'm not saying that this is what is happening in this case, but what I do believe is that we have to be vigilant and aware that behind this tragedy there are almost certainly some individuals who are sniffing out their personal advantage, and the advancement of their personal agenda (for whatever motive, be that religious, moral or financial, or a mixture of all of these). We've seen it over and over, to the point that personally, when I see such arguments, my Pavlovian reaction is to suspect ulterior motives.

At best, such arguments have no credible science to back them up. At worst they are an attempt to use fear to force modes of restrictive behaviour on us.

 

[stonedinstilletos]

This feels like when they tried to blame D&D and heavy metal for teens killing poeple back in the 80s or video games in the 90s. I think it might have some effect, but at the same time I think there are larger things at play that have more of an effect on the killers. Were their parents present? What sort of modelling of empathy and morals were they being shown by people in their life or had they been abandoned.

Thats my 2 cents.

 

[TheRedChamber]

I'm not sure about violence overall but pornography showing violent sex is probably causing more people to try violent sex and that's why i ask my dates about their favourite pornography and fantasies because i don't want to date somebody who likes violent pornography except i'm ok with being spanked but not ok with my boobs being roughly treated or neck being choked

I'm married so my dating days are far behind me, but I'm scratching my head trying to work out what the best response to that question is. Don't say 'be honest', no, no, no. We know that's a trap.

"Vanilla. Just very vanilla. With girls just like you...no, I mean with general girls, you know just very generally girly girls having nice sex. Not that I want sex to be 'nice', sex with me would 'hot', just 'nice hot'...Er, are we ready for dessert. Waiter, quickly please. I'll have vanilla ice-cream with an extra scoop of vanilla please."

"Oh, you know a bit of everything. Transexual. Ebony. BDSM. Watersports. Latina. Big Boobs. Asian. Small Boobs. Step-Mom, Granny porn. Barely Legal. Actually Illegal. A bit of everything. I basically start on A on Pornhub every January and then work my way through the fetish alphabet."

"Armpits. Just armpits."

"Anything filmed from the cuckold's perspective."

"It doesn't matter what they're doing or how attractive they are as long as you can feel the spiritual connection."

See, whatever I say, you're going straight out of the bathroom window and leaving me with the check...

 

[XerXesXu]

Correction: Mrs Justice Yip will pass sentence on 2nd Feb. ‘Girl X has traits of autism and ADHD, the court heard, while Boy Y has been diagnosed as having autism and selective mutism’.

For those of you who fear that there’s almost certain to be hysterical demands from many to ban stuff, your right, but I’m not concerned with that. You might as well complain about the rain.

This passage from ronde #10 resonates with me:

‘I grew up playing cowboys and Indians and since I'm a "boomer" I also played "Americans and Natzis" and "Americans and Japs" with my friends during school recess. It was just that - play. We were acting out what we saw in the movies and on television and what we heard from our veteran dads. At least a couple who played the part of American soldiers were of German descent. I know of none of my classmates who have ever killed a Native American, a German, or a Japanese person. I've had friends who were all three, and my daughter in law is half Cherokee. Even as kids, we could determine reality from play, and we went on to live our lives accordingly. I don't think the people of today are any different. They may play video games where the first person shooter kills hundreds of people, and they may watch rape in movies, but I doubt the vast majority would ever consider acting those experiences out in real life.’

On reflection, that resonates with my story. I’m a boomer. As a kid I read a comic called Commando, about soldiers in the recent war killing Germans and Japs. Gripping tuff. As a teenager I attended an ‘emergency school’, any educational building was pressed into service because there was insufficient infrastructure to school the baby boom. Our teaches were emergency teachers, de-mobed servicemen with some colourable qualification to justify an appointment as a teacher. The school had no facilities for the required extra-curricular activities on Wednesday afternoons and Saturday mornings and was reliant on other organisations to provide those. The staff had connections with the Sea Cadets, who were happy to pick us up and take us away. I joined the Royal Marines cadets. I enjoyed the stories told by our ex-marine instructors about their derring-do, and the recent operations in the tropical jungles of Malaya. I thought I’d like to do that. At 17 I volunteered for the Royal Marine Reserves, within 18 months I was a Royal Marine Commando. I enjoyed the physical training, the difficult part for me was eating 3,500 calories a day. I’m not a foodie. I was a little disappointed that we were now tasked with the defence of the snowy wastes of Northern Europe, but I more that fulfilled my basic commitment because I enjoyed it. Then, one day I was mobilised. I killed foreigners, just like in the comic.

I wasn’t born to kill and I wasn’t born evil, at least, that’s my strongly held belief. I was born with a clean sheet, I could have been anything it’s possible for a human being to be, but I was me. What caused me. Many things. My father and his father and grandfather were servicemen, warrant officers, and had fought in wars. They neither encouraged nor discouraged me, but they were role models. My teachers, all servicemen, were role models. My cadet force instructors were role models. The Warsaw Pact was a looming threat, my school had bomb-shelters, and I truly believed that if you wanted peace you must prepare for war. But I don’t believe that if I hadn’t been thrilled by reading that comic I would ever have killed. I believe it was causal, not the immediate cause, a remote cause, but the primary cause.

I don’t believe the vast majority of people who read Commando volunteered, but I did.

I don’t believe the vast majority of people who read this:

Caught in the Crossfire - NonConsent/Reluctance - Literotica.com

with enjoyment will go on to punishment rape women and kill. I know some will do so who haven’t read it. They’re in the news currently. I do believe that some who have read it with enjoyment and who find themselves in uniform, with guns and in control of prey population to which they’re hostile, will punishment rape, torture and kill.

So:

‘ When you write, do you consider the effect your writing has on others, possibly vulnerable others, or do you believe those who write fictional affirmations of cruelty, violence, torture and rape can have no effect on behaviour in the real world?’

and, 'Do you believe that it’s possible that exposure to such fantasies can initiate a causal chain that leads to such acts?’

I know you don’t write such stuff, but you know there’re those who do. Would you consider it irresponsible to write such stuff?

 

[HordHolm]

‘ When you write, do you consider the effect your writing has on others, possibly vulnerable others, or do you believe those who write fictional affirmations of cruelty, violence, torture and rape can have no effect on behaviour in the real world?’

and, 'Do you believe that it’s possible that exposure to such fantasies can initiate a causal chain that leads to such acts?’

Would you consider it irresponsible to write such stuff?

To answer your first question, firstly, no, because if I spent my time agonising about how any and every word might affect someone I don't know, either now or a decade down the road if they happen upon it, then I would be paralysed and unable to write a thing. I have no way of knowing what might or might not trigger someone. How could I? And to answer the second part of your question, well, it goes to the same answer for your second question. But both the second part of your first question and your second question are incredibly loaded.

To the second question it surely impossible to give any other answer than, 'yes, it's possible'. But that, in itself, is a dangerous answer. It doesn't allow for degree, or probability, and that is because of the answer to your third question:

In general, 'no', largely because it is a) impossible to know where someone starts in relation to acts they commit later in life (basically, 'nature') and, b) it is equally impossible to demonstrate the effect of situation, cultural influence, economic deprivation or lack thereof, media influence, etc, etc, etc, (basically 'nurture') on the same act committed by that individual. As we cannot reasonably ascribe any definitive 'score' to either of these nature/nurture factors, we have no empirical way of knowing whether any particular film, story, fantasy, etc, led that particular individual to cross a line that a million others wouldn't. Or whether they would cross the same line tomorrow that they crossed today. Of course, they might self-report, but we can only take such self-reporting on trust - fine for the individual if we feel we have a handle on their personality (though let's face it, plenty of people get fooled), but hardly good enough in a wider sense.

 

[StillStunned]

If writers had the power to influence readers to a meaningful degree, we'd all be rich.

 

[stickygirl]

If you put a gun in the hands of a three year old they’ll see it as a toy and if they end up shooting their Mum, they won’t understand the significance of it until they’re older. When angry children scream I’ll kill you they mean it in that moment. Children have to learn and in 99% of the time they do and become scattered in the bell-curve of human characters, from true altruists to complete cunts.

From the little that has been reported, we can read these two teenagers had been able to reinforce and encourage each other’s patterns of behaviour, egging each other along a path of disassociation and were perhaps were already sociopathic (we don't know). They’re chosen isolation from normal interactions with other people meant they had little to modify their conspiratorial violence and both were probably predisposed to being easily led.

Did the dark web or video games put the weapons into their hand? No. Did those influences plant the seeds of violent thought? No more than they do in any well-balanced person. The issue is how they processed it, then fuelled each other’s immature ideation of the act: that they felt superior to other people and above being held responsible by a society they didn’t believe in. Are they ever likely to change… I don’t know enough to comment.

Originally, I thought this thread was about the lone shooter in Prague earlier this week. There’s probably similarities in terms of mental frame of mind, but how the fuck does a teenager get hold of scopes, rifle, shotgun and unlimited ammunition? Who is complicit in that outrage? The society that makes gun ownership easier than owning a dog.

Which is easier to regulate: online video games or assault weapons? That genie is so out of the bottle in the US it'll never be possible. Other countries have been able to make a choice.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Did the dark web or video games put the weapons into their hand? No. Did those influences plant the seeds of violent thought? No more than they do in any well-balanced person. The issue is how they processed it, then fuelled each other’s immature ideation of the act: that they felt superior to other people and above being held responsible by a society they didn’t believe in. Are they ever likely to change… I don’t know enough to comment.

Originally, I thought this thread was about the lone shooter in Prague earlier this week. There’s probably similarities in terms of mental frame of mind, but how the fuck does a teenager get hold of scopes, rifle, shotgun and unlimited ammunition? Who is complicit in that outrage? The society that makes gun ownership easier than owning a dog.

Which is easier to regulate: online video games or assault weapons? That genie is so out of the bottle in the US it'll never be possible. Other countries have been able to make a choice.

First, can we dispense with the canard that it's "easier to buy a gun than..." that always appears when this topic comes up.
You don't have to fill out a form under penalty of perjury (unless you're Hunter Biden of course, then that law doesn't apply) and pass a Federal background check to own a dog.
My Grandfather walked to middle school with his shotgun over his shoulder, left it sitting in the coat room during class, his jacket hanging next to it with a pocketful of shells, then took the long route home and did some bird hunting along the way.
Strangely, kids weren't shooting up schools back then, despite EASIER access to guns.