Rocketmedic
Member
-Rocketmedic.Children mimic what they have seen (as proven by Dr. Bandera). However, the argument that violence is to blame for the perceived "spike" in violence ignores many other factors in society and how we raise children and unfairly blames media. Dr. Bandera demonstrated that young children will copy what they have remotely viewed, often without fear of consequence, because they have never seen the behavior (or its consequences) before. Others argue that the steady increase in 'violence' in popular culture and the media is responsible for the actions of the mentally ill, or even that their medications are inducing them to kill. Still others blame the lack of consequences for actions, poverty, or simply absentee or ineffective parenting. All of these things are factors, none are responsible for any increase in violence alone.
Let's look at autism, Asperger's, and mental health. I am an Aspie- I exhibit many of the hallmarks of Asperger's, I often do not consider the impact of my words before I say them, and I am quite blunt. However, just like every other non-retarded person alive, I retain a moral compass, and since I was not raised as a feral animal, that moral compass is aligned with the morals of society as a whole. Most of the villains of mass shootings- Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, and that Korean guy from Virginia Tech- were also linked to Asperger's, along with hosts of other mental illnesses. They were all intelligent men, young, with plenty of textbook knowledge and classic "nerd" traits- introverted, non-sociable, successful within their applications but easily frustrated and unsuccessful outside of their own bubbles. They all had functioning moral compasses, aligned with society- indeed, they were nearly model citizens until they reached adulthood. Their stories are eerily similar- success until they were confronted with adversity, met with mass murder of innocents. Now let's look at how we were told they were raised.
By all accounts, these people were raised with the best ideals of the 1990s. They were encouraged to study independently, were not forced to participate in team sports or allowed to interact with others, and were sheltered from reality. In the words of the fictional police officer Terry Hoitz, "life gets loud sometimes", and these children were wearing earmuffs put on of their own free will and allowed to remain attached by their parents. They were not socialized much with other children, often on the grounds of being autistic, 'special' or 'gifted'. They were outsiders. For recreation, it is known that at least some of these children turned to video games at an early age, with a natural preponderance of male-oriented violent games (simply put, no one buys lame games). This is the cited cause of violence by exposure to animated violence by interest groups with need of a target to blame- the NRA, for instance, blames mass shootings on constant exposure to violent games, with many of its members citing causes as diverse as medication and (lack of) religious fervor. However, they ignore a fundamental truth- society has become less violent, not more.
A child growing up in the 1950s knew death and violence from war stories of fathers, uncles, brothers and friends. They saw death up-close with the losses of their peers from accidents and disease. A child growing up in the 1960s saw their peers pulled into the Vietnam War and saw social evils up close. Children in the 1970s and 1980s were for the first time exposed to readily-available child-oriented violence on an uncontrollable basis, but they were also allowed to play and interact "for real", with rock fights, BB-gun wars and real, physical consequences linked to actions. Even today, we can look at the childhood of a criminal like Adam Lanza and compare it to a wholesome citizen such as myself and see some massive differences- I was allowed, encouraged, and sometimes forced to interact with real people and participate in society. Many of these people were treated in the opposite way.
America today has attempted to renounce violence on a national level. We have adopted asinine and inflexible "zero-tolerance" policies and actively dissuade our childen from play, violence and even violent sports in many parts of the country. We diagnose children from a young age with an ever-broadening list of psychiatric conditions, medicate them, and then protect them from society and maturity, but we give them access to the trappings of adulthood- independence, vehicles, weapons. We never let them learn that hitting people gets painful for the assailant as well, and we pretend to be surprised by their violence. They know better, yes, but when confronted with adversity, these people are children with the bodies and tools of men and the intellect of a techician without context for action.
Children are quite good at learning, and media is a very effective teacher. Immersive media teaches people how to do quite a few things that classroom lectures cannot- this is why pilots, the military and police use simulators for training. Nearly identical simulations are sold and marketed to the public as violent, immersive, and hyper-popular video games. I personally have learned more about conventional warfare, tactics, military techniques and even ethics from video games than the military. That is with me as an adult. As a child with no exterior context of violence, it is nearly a foregone conclusion that they will be able to learn to act violently with effectiveness. When coupled with easy-to-use firearms that children (and adults) instinctively know how to operate, with 'training' from early childhood with those tools, it is hardly a surprise that their use will be more effective- we can see the same thing in high school sports, where young athletes who have played hundreds of hours of Madden football are 'better' at football tactics and strategy than even veteran football players (see the increased rates of ascending rookie players to the elite ranks of the NFL, as opposed to twenty years ago). The thing that media cannot effectively impart is real-world consequences. A linebacker can learn to read and tackle an opposing player with Madden, but only getting hit can teach him to play the real game. Punching a peer in school, an act demonized as bullying, will eventually result in real consequences.
Media is effective at teaching. Without real life to impart context, that knowledge can be dangerous. The current perceived 'epidemic' in violence is a result of children being sheltered from real life while being trained to kill and able to access weapons. These things happened years ago, yes, but they were far rarer because most of those children who were "borderline" were taught that violence has real-life consequences. Without those formative years of play (and yes, real) fights, social interaction and socialization, we are seeing more of these twisted, nonadaptable psyches emerging, and their emergence is violent and lethal to anyone unfortunate enough to be nearby.
Your thoughts?
