Who agrees with Jessica?

[XerXesXu]

'These violent killings turned into a wider discussion in UK government: could the consumption of extremely violent materials be encouraging children to kill each other?

A pretty simple question, I would say. One with a pretty simple answer. In my view, as a psychologist, the answer is a resounding yes.'

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...&cvid=8dd4656fc4c64e0fa3ed097cefdf9c3f&ei=104

 

[TheRedChamber]

This was a horrible, horrible case, but this sounds like it's going to be a topic more suited to the politics board unless you specifically want to discuss the effects of the type of material published here. In that case, the Brianna murder isn't really relevant.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Definitely seems to be a better fit for the politics board.

 

[ElectricBlue]

It's always been my belief that vile material can trigger an abnormal response in someone who is already profoundly damaged.

Others will immediately say, but everyone can separate fiction from reality, but I don't believe that, not at all.

 

[Britva415]

Steve Bannon was on his "channel" a day or two ago saying kids who feel like they're picked on should be given gun training and guns.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Just a casual observer, but, um, as a few others have mentioned, I don't think this conversation fits on this particular forum.
Just my tuppence, I guess...

 

[XerXesXu]

Just a casual observer, but, um, as a few others have mentioned, I don't think this conversation fits on this particular forum.
Just my tuppence, I guess...

I'm not interested in politics.

This is a subject we've discussed many times before on AH. 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? It's the lived experience of this psychologist:

Dr Jess Taylor

that it can and does.

Does her opinion give anyone pause for thought?

 

[SimonDoom]

To the extent this case and the issues bear on the question, "What are your responsibilities as an author?" then I think it's perfectly appropriate to discuss it here at the Hangout rather than consigning it to the dark pit of the Politics Board.

This is a complex issue that people have a difficult time looking at in a complex way.

Do I believe that people are sometimes influenced by media to do bad things? Of course I do. I think copycat killings are a real thing. John Hinkley was "inspired" by watching the movie Taxi Driver to try to kill Ronald Reagan. I suspect that there are twisted young people who see news stories about school shootings and think, "I could do that to the people I hate."

The only way to try to answer questions like these, though, is to put aside personal biases and preconceptions and to use scientifically valid methods to test hypotheses. The cited article is not an attempt to do that.

Violent and pornographic materials are far easier for young people to access today than they were when I was young, when there was no Internet. Is there more crime now? No. Is it clear that there is a net increase in transgressive behavior because of the availability of these kinds of materials? No. My sons, and all their friends, grew up, unlike me, playing hyper-violent first person shoot 'em up video games. They can all get porn on their phones with the click of a thumb, unlike me at their age. I see no evidence that their generation is more violent or sexually predatory or maladjusted than mine. My conclusion? I don't know, but I want to see sound scientific methods to address the question before I come to a conclusion, and in the meantime I think the burden of proof rests with those who would advocate against materials they don't like.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

This is a subject we've discussed many times before on AH. 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. It's the lived experience of this psychologist:

This is a very different, ad much more succinct, question than the one that started the thread.

Personally, I believe without the visual component, violence and other extreme behaviors are much less an issue. I read Milton (Le Morte d'Arthur was printed 1n 1485) as a freshman in high school and never had any inclination to run someone through with a spear. (Arthur's fight with Mordred is an all time favorite passage of mine)

Written text also has a specific separation between the medium and the reader. Two people can read the same thing and their minds will paint completely different pictures.

No real conclusion. My oldest read harry Potter in the third grade, for whatever that's worth.

 

[ronde]

I'm not interested in politics.

This is a subject we've discussed many times before on AH. 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. It's the lived experience of this psychologist:

Dr Jess Taylor

that it can and does.

Does her opinion give anyone pause for thought?

I have never written anything that affirmed any of those things because I can't make myself do it. That said, I think it's important to look at the people who claim to use books and films as a "reason" for their behavior.

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.

Not to belittle the skill and training of a practicing psychologist, but in general, people without problems probably wouldn't ever see a psychologist, so the sample size is minimal. Those who do are either referred as part of an investigation or know they have a problem and are seeking help. In other words, I believe it to be true that some individuals can be affected by movies, video games, and literature to the extent they become serial killers or sexual abusers, but it is not true that the same movies, video games, and literature are causative. It is only causative for a few individuals who already have the motivation.

My thought is that censoring everything in the name of protecting people is no different than limiting the speed of my vehicle to twenty miles an hour since most fatal crashes happen at much faster speeds. People have brains and can determine what is right and what is wrong. Should we censor movies and books with gay or lesbian content for fear they'll turn "normal" people into gay men and lesbian women? Did "Shades of Gray" cause a multitude of people to begin living the BDSM lifestyle? We don't need to limit access to what people want to read just because a very few seem to decide to become the bad guy in some movie or story.

 

[Cagivagurl]

'These violent killings turned into a wider discussion in UK government: could the consumption of extremely violent materials be encouraging children to kill each other?

A pretty simple question, I would say. One with a pretty simple answer. In my view, as a psychologist, the answer is a resounding yes.'

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...&cvid=8dd4656fc4c64e0fa3ed097cefdf9c3f&ei=104

I agree.
Everything we see these days is filled with OTT violent scenes. Of course that has an impact on people.
And yes that flows into erotica, the written word both here and other sites, and also movies.
Everything these days is sexualised, pop music, pop art, magazines...

You cannot fill the minds of children with violence and murder, and not expect that to appear in their actions.
The increase in violent crime is obvious.

Cagivagurl

 

[XerXesXu]

Every year the lives of approximately 1.2 million people are cut short as a result of a road traffic crash. Between 20 and 50 million more people suffer non-fatal injuries, with many incurring a disability.

Should we stop using cars? After all, we managed without them for millennia.

Complete avoidance of any risk equates to not living.

My son and his friends drive at 60KmH in a 20 KmH zone. Open the throttle - 'Wheee.' There are frequent accidents, pedestrians, children, are injured. A couple of his friends have been killed. I used to race, at night, at 100mph, on unlit A roads and a couple of my friends were killed. I've not told my son that, I've told him to drive slowly and safely.

As an alternative to stopping the use of motorbikes, do you not think that ceasing to glamorise racing vehicles recklessly on public roads, in all forms media, is worth considering?

PS: Also, requiring people to be able to drive before driving on public roads would also dramatically reduce the fatality rate in the Phillipines and USA to levels in the UK. Would you consider that, or would that be an unreasonable restriction on personal freedom??

 

[JGittes]

I always find conversations about how what we read and see affects us amusing and irrelevant.

The answer is simple when framed in terms of money. How much money is spent on advertising and are the people who spend it fools?

 

[XerXesXu]

Developments. Sentencing will be on 4th February, the Defendants will be named, though minors. I'm sure the judge's sentencing remarks will be televised.

Both pleaded Not Guilty and ran a 'cut-throat' defence, blaming the other for the killing even though they had been caught in the act. The officer in the case said they thought they were only fantasising when the murder was planned. It's said both were autistic and the boy had ADHD.

Will the judge take the 'pure evil' line, or assign culpability to the National Health Service for failing to intervene timeously?

 

[MadeleineSinha]

Will the judge take the 'pure evil' line, or assign culpability to the National Health Service for failing to intervene timeously?

I must have missed the bit that said those were the only available options.
You could start by looking at the home lives of the killers, perhaps the grossly underfunded mental health and social work services could have helped if they had enough money to maintain a service even close to being fit for purpose.
Perhaps you could look at the school, were there warning signs that a resident healthcare professional could have identified if our schools came close to being adequatley funded.

 

[HordHolm]

'These violent killings turned into a wider discussion in UK government: could the consumption of extremely violent materials be encouraging children to kill each other?

A pretty simple question, I would say. One with a pretty simple answer. In my view, as a psychologist, the answer is a resounding yes.'

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...&cvid=8dd4656fc4c64e0fa3ed097cefdf9c3f&ei=104

In a wider sense, no. One hundred and seventy years ago women buying train tickets was the end of civilization because they had the possibility of travelling unchaperoned. We're still here. One hundred and fifty years ago the moral panic was bicycles for the same reason, yet here we are. Then it was cinema, and then cars and jazz in the 1920s, and then it was radio, or comic books. In the 1930s it was reefer madness, and then it moved on to that demon rock'n'roll music, and that even more demonic communism in the 1950s. Psychedelia filled the role in the 1960s, moving on to Black Power and heroin in the 1970s. And we're still here. In the 1980s we had the video nasties panic, and Tipper Gore's crusade against rap lyrics. We had crack cocaine, too. Yet still we're rolling on into the future. More recently we've had social media and TikTok and all the panics about these issues. And yet we're still here. It seems everything sparks a moral panic somewhere, and this looks like another example.

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.

Should we all just write 'nice' things in case a vanishing small minority of people use that as an excuse to justify or explain their violent actions? Fuck, no! Because they will always seek to find something to make the case that it wasn't really their fault, your honour, society's to blame.

 

[HordHolm]

Violent and pornographic materials are far easier for young people to access today than they were when I was young, when there was no Internet. Is there more crime now? No. Is it clear that there is a net increase in transgressive behavior because of the availability of these kinds of materials? No. My sons, and all their friends, grew up, unlike me, playing hyper-violent first person shoot 'em up video games. They can all get porn on their phones with the click of a thumb, unlike me at their age. I see no evidence that their generation is more violent or sexually predatory or maladjusted than mine. My conclusion? I don't know, but I want to see sound scientific methods to address the question before I come to a conclusion, and in the meantime I think the burden of proof rests with those who would advocate against materials they don't like.

^This^

Every time something happens someone, somewhere, tries to shoehorn it into their own agenda. Resist those arguments. If there is to be action taken let it be based on sound evidence, not a moral panic.

 

[XerXesXu]

I must have missed the bit that said those were the only available options.
You could start by looking at the home lives of the killers, perhaps the grossly underfunded mental health and social work services could have helped if they had enough money to maintain a service even close to being fit for purpose.
Perhaps you could look at the school, were there warning signs that a resident healthcare professional could have identified if our schools came close to being adequatley funded.

Excellent start.

Apparently, there was nothing impeachable in their home life, but will there be a CRO (Criminal Records Office record) showing previous contacts with the police, school records of concerning behaviours, and contacts with social services? How many safeguarding red-flags were missed? Had they been on a long NHS waiting list for diagnosis and so not received the required therapies? Defence counsel will be trawling through an enormous number of reports, psychiatric, social work and school for matters to put in mitigation.

 

[XerXesXu]

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

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

 

[u1u1u1]

The ease of accessing violent content has increased significantly in the last few decades, and yet rates of violent crime have fallen. In the UK, violent crime is at about a quarter of the level it was at when I was born.

I must admit I think this topic seems to be veering into “discuss the brutal murder of an innocent teenager, and the mental states of her murderers” rather than “do you consider the impact your writing might have?”. I, personally, find it rather distasteful.

 

[Rob_Royale]

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.

 

[HordHolm]

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

Great! Miss off my equivocal answer when you quote me then throw it back when I've already said I don't know.

 

[XerXesXu]

The ease of accessing violent content has increased significantly in the last few decades, and yet rates of violent crime have fallen. In the UK, violent crime is at about a quarter of the level it was at when I was born.

I must admit I think this topic seems to be veering into “discuss the brutal murder of an innocent teenager, and the mental states of her murderers” rather than “do you consider the impact your writing might have?”. I, personally, find it rather distasteful.

It's certainly distasteful.

There've been threads on AH about how posters use the stories on Lit to masturbate, how they masturbate when they write them, and when and how they do so when they read them. That's grossly distasteful, but it's an acknowledgement that words written in fantasy incite real behaviour by real people in the real world. Talking about it is distasteful, at least in my opinion, I'm sure others disagree. But it's not important.

Discussing whether writing gratuitously cruel and violent fantasies can incite real behaviour by real people in the real world, beyond masturbation is, at least, important. Why would anyone suppose that they stop at masturbation? I can't follow the logic of those who say, we can incite people to masturbate but no further. How do they know?

 

[XerXesXu]

Great! Miss off my equivocal answer when you quote me then throw it back when I've already said I don't know.

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

 

[Rob_Royale]

Nonsense, violent video games existed as early as the 1980s. In the animal kingdom, every game simulates a battle. Violence is an inherent part of nature. Unfortunately, certain people and cultures have taken it one step too far.

Yes, I'm sure you're right. Clearly, these are the same as far as violent imagery.