Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Goddamnit, it's like he's getting paid by some anti-shooter-games-lobby to say that stuff.

Oh, and he played 16hrs of WoW a day, too, while staying at his mother's house. And claimed it helped to reduce his social life to a point where going on his insane suicidical rampage was more bearable.

How many concerned moms will now go and take away the games their sons and daughters play?

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2012/04/norwegian-shooter-breivik-says-he-trained-using-modern-warfare.ars?clicked=related_right

Restrained from murdering children, Breivik seeks to do the most harm he currently can to them by implicating youth culture in his crimes. It's basically like he's saying "the kids were asking for it" by bringing this up.

I think we all know that video games were going to be blamed eventually.

As I understand it the prosecution used his gaming, like 16 hours a day, to show how disconnected he was, and didn't claim that they were what drove him to violence.

He used the games as training, not as inspiration. There is nothing to run with here as a story.

Ahtman wrote:As I understand it the prosecution used his gaming, like 16 hours a day, to show how disconnected he was, and didn't claim that they were what drove him to violence.

Even that is problematic. It may even be more problematic because that is going to sound more plausible to contemporary parents. We're talking about people who grew up with video games and know playing Mario doesn't make you want to murder children. But they don't have a lot of experience with MMOs and the idea that playing WoW turns you into a sociopath may strike them as reasonable.

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:As I understand it the prosecution used his gaming, like 16 hours a day, to show how disconnected he was, and didn't claim that they were what drove him to violence.

Even that is problematic. It may even be more problematic because that is going to sound more plausible to contemporary parents. We're talking about people who grew up with video games and know playing Mario doesn't make you want to murder children. But they don't have a lot of experience with MMOs and the idea that playing WoW turns you into a sociopath may strike them as reasonable.

I doubt you could convince a jury of that, 1/2 of them are probably already pissed they got called for jury duty and are missing the guild raids

Orlanth wrote:He used the games as training, not as inspiration.

No he didn't. If he had used games as training his body count would be much lower for the simple reason that commercial games (with very few exceptions) teach you absolutely nothing about real world tactics and weapon use.

Given that gaming is a media whipping boy I'm not surprised that this has gotten the usual coverage from the usual suspects.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/19/breivik-testifies-about-gaming-press-ignores-the-facts/ is a better link about this.

The video in that link is very good.

What's sad about that article is that it criticizing the press for oversimplifying Breivik's testimony and thereby attacking gaming -- but the article itself oversimplifies Eriksen's statements as a counterattack. This is done explicitly:

Yesterday Britain’s Daily Telegraph spoke to Oslo University professor of sociology, Thomas Hylland Eriksen, who believes that one factor that “hasn’t sufficiently been taken into account” was Breivik’s so-called “fascination” with World Of Warcraft. Because Breivik likes order and doesn’t like chaos, erm, something something, it’s gaming’s fault.

Anti-gaming press, pro-gaming press -- it's all gak.

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:As I understand it the prosecution used his gaming, like 16 hours a day, to show how disconnected he was, and didn't claim that they were what drove him to violence.

Even that is problematic. It may even be more problematic because that is going to sound more plausible to contemporary parents. We're talking about people who grew up with video games and know playing Mario doesn't make you want to murder children. But they don't have a lot of experience with MMOs and the idea that playing WoW turns you into a sociopath may strike them as reasonable.

I think you re putting to much emphasis on the gaming part of the statement. They weren't saying he was disconnected because he played video games, but because he had cut himself off from the world, and this was just an example. You seem to be taking at is "he played video games so he was out of touch" when they were saying "he was out of touch, and here is some evidence to back that up, including, but not limited to, playing WoW for 16 hours a day". It was part of a pattern of behavior, not the driving force behind the behavior.

Ahtman wrote:You seem to be taking at is "he played video games so he was out of touch" when they were saying "he was out of touch, and here is some evidence to back that up, including, but not limited to, playing WoW for 16 hours a day".

"Playing video games causes you to be a sociopath."

"Playing video games is a symptom of being a sociopath."

First, which statement do you think is less harmful to public discourse about video games? Second, do you think parents vulnerable to either message will distinguish between them?

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:You seem to be taking at is "he played video games so he was out of touch" when they were saying "he was out of touch, and here is some evidence to back that up, including, but not limited to, playing WoW for 16 hours a day".

"Playing video games causes you to be a sociopath."

"Playing video games is a symptom of being a sociopath."

I don't believe the word sociopath was used, nor was that phrasing; I think you are rewording statements and changing their meaning. There is a difference between showing a patter of behavior and attributing a single thing with that behavior. By your reasoning nothing anyone does is indicative of anything at any time. If you are trying to show a person had withdrawn from society it helps to be able to show that, you know, that had withdrawn from society. It could have been Warhammer obsession or watching endless loops of Designing Women.

First, which statement do you think is less harmful to public discourse about video games?

I think you are offering a false choice as neither really encompasses what has been said.

The issue is not that Breivik "withdrew from society." The issue is that withdrawing from society was part of his path towards murdering people. It's like a Russian nesting doll. The big one is the murder. Inside of it is the withdrawing from society. And there at the core of it all is playing video games.

I think you are offering a false choice as neither really encompasses what has been said.

I think you are dodging a valid argument by insisting on an overly literal interpretation that disregards actual context.

Manchu wrote:The issue is not that Breivik "withdrew from society." The issue is that withdrawing from society was part of his path towards murdering people. It's like a Russian nesting doll. The big one is the murder. Inside of it is the withdrawing from society. And there at the core of it all is playing video games.

I think you are offering a false choice as neither really encompasses what has been said.

I think you are dodging a valid argument by insisting on an overly literal interpretation that disregards actual context.

Obsessive, disconnected behavior is still obsessive, disconnected behavior whether a person never played a video game in their life. It would be silly to ignore a destructive pattern of anti-social behavior just because part of the expression of that pattern involves video games. It was his ideology that drove him, not games, but that doesn't mean his pathology didn't manifest in a myriad of ways and I don't think it is unreasonable to present the different ways it presented itself. I don't think it is a nesting doll either, or at least not the one you presented because in your analogy gaming is at the core of him going on a rampage and that isn't what I presented at all. There isn't a single doll at the center and it certainly isn't video games even if it were.

I get the impression you are conflating my statements with others from somewhere else as you keep refuting the argument that gaming made him do it when I haven't presented that argument, and in fact didn't come near that. If we can't look at the way people behave in total, and not just whether they game or not, how do we asses their actions? The idea that the things people do and how they act isn't an indicator of the things they do or how they act is a bit obtuse.

I feel like we are talking passed each other and not to each other. I keep reiterating that it isn't being laid at the feet of gaming and is one piece of a large jigsaw puzzle and you seemingly keep coming back with "you can't blame video games", which really seems to miss the point.

Ahtman wrote:The idea that the things people do and how they act isn't an indicator of the things they do or how they act is a bit obtuse.

The issue is when we pretend that everything the do indicates everything else that they do. Or worse, when we isolate one neutral thing that they do as an indicator of one terrible thing that they do. Yes, Ahtman, you yourself are not doing this. It may be that the prosecutor is not doing this either. But if you consider my posts, you'll see that I am not referring to either you or the prosecutor but rather to how parents will read headlines.

Ahtman wrote:... you keep refuting the argument that gaming made him do it when I haven't presented that argument, and in fact didn't come near that.

There is a kernal of that in your argument. To wit:

Ahtman wrote:It would be silly to ignore a destructive pattern of anti-social behavior just because part of the expression of that pattern involves video games.

Your argument is that playing WoW for 16 hours a day is an example of destructive anti-social behavior that fits into a pattern of destructive anti-social behavior. So, by all means, lay out for me how you juxtapose playing WoW relative to murdering children in this elusive "destructive pattern of anti-social behavior" matrix.

PLease find me someone normal who plays WOW 16 hours a day. I'll wait. Its ok, I brought a book to read.

And as we all know, abnormal people murder children.

QED

Frazzled wrote:PLease find me someone normal who plays WOW 16 hours a day. I'll wait. Its ok, I brought a book to read.

You could always play some WOW instead...

Manchu wrote:And as we all know, abnormal people murder children.

QED

Yep. Not seen many normal people murder children.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:PLease find me someone normal who plays WOW 16 hours a day. I'll wait. Its ok, I brought a book to read.

You could always play some WOW instead...

How about a nice FPS?

Frazzled wrote:How about a nice FPS?

Sure, I've got (more than) a few you could borrow. Or I guess you could go to the range and blow away some targets

Frazzled wrote:Yep. Not seen many normal people murder children.

Yes, murdering children and playing video games are all jumbling around in a big bag labeled "destructive pattern of anti-social behavior." Who knows what Breivik will pull out of the sack on a given day. One day it's sixteen hours of WoW. The next it's 69 dead kids.

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Yep. Not seen many normal people murder children.

Yes, murdering children and playing video games are all jumbling around in a big bag labeled "destructive pattern of anti-social behavior." Who knows what Breivik will pull out of the sack on a given day. One day it's sixteen hours of WoW. The next it's 69 dead kids.

I bet he didn't even get any good loot drops...

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How about a nice FPS?

Sure, I've got (more than) a few you could borrow. Or I guess you could go to the range and blow away some targets

Wait thats not what we're talking about? Frazzled now sad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Yep. Not seen many normal people murder children.

Yes, murdering children and playing video games are all jumbling around in a big bag labeled "destructive pattern of anti-social behavior." Who knows what Breivik will pull out of the sack on a given day. One day it's sixteen hours of WoW. The next it's 69 dead kids.

Again, its a fair point. If you're playing WOW for 16 hours a day, something's wrong.

The guy used a Ruger Mini 14 with a bunch of lame tacticool garbage tacked onto it. Doesn't surprise me at all.

Manchu wrote:Your argument is that playing WoW for 16 hours a day is an example of destructive anti-social behavior

That isn't my argument. Playing WoW for 16 hours a day was part of this persons pattern that leads to showing he had destructive anti-social behavior, it in and of itself isn't destructive, anti-social behavior*. A component of a thing, is not the thing itself. Essentially I am saying it is a muffler (playing WoW) is part of a car (obsessive, destructive behavior), but is not the car itself, and your response is to say that I am arguing that a muffler is a car.






*Though I think most sensible people would agree it isn't probably the healthiest thing either, but in and of itself does not lead to crime. Of course,neither I, nor the prosecutors, have forwarded the argument that playing WoW, or any other game, leads to crime.

Ahtman wrote: Essentially I am saying it is a muffler (playing WoW) is part of a car (obsessive, destructive behavior), but is not the car itself, and your response is to say that I am arguing that a muffler is a car.

No.

I'm saying that, in figuring out why the car can move, the glovebox isn't at issue even though it is a part of the car.

Wait, we're not talking about the windows? What if the windows are powered windows but good old fashioned roll ups?

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote: Essentially I am saying it is a muffler (playing WoW) is part of a car (obsessive, destructive behavior), but is not the car itself, and your response is to say that I am arguing that a muffler is a car.

No.

I'm saying that, in figuring out why the car can move, the glovebox isn't at issue even though it is a part of the car.

Which goes back to talking past each other as you are essentially arguing against something not proffered.

Not proffered by you.

Wheres Marilyn Manson when you need em ya?

Probably playing video games. Or maybe banging some hot fetish model.