Wehrwolfen
Senior Member
- May 22, 2012
- 2,750
- 340
- 48
L.A. Times: Violent Movies Dont Cause Violence, but Guns Do
Understanding the fractured mind of a gun-ban fetishist.
by Howard Nemerov
February 16, 2013
Betsy Sharkey of the Los Angeles Times penned an op/ed claiming that violent movies dont make people violent, but instead are a positive force. Her diatribe highlights the mental disturbance thats the result of hoplophobia. Heres some analysis of her points.
A good deal of movie violence is designed as a way for us to experience it vicariously.
Why does she need to vicariously experience violence? If she were writing about XXX-rated movies, we would call it pornography, which purportedly offers viewers vicarious stimulation, too. According to a Psychology Today author: pornography not only arouses, it tutors our imagination. In this way, pornography shapes male expectations and splits mens consciousness, destroying their ability to relate to real women.
Now were supposed to believe that violence-pornography doesnt affect peoples minds, while sex-pornography does. Welcome to the split consciousness at the LA Times.
Heres more evidence of a split consciousness. Sharkey acknowledges violence has been with us since the dawn of mankind. Violence preceded guns, too. Imagine a woman with a stick facing off with a large male. Now replace that stick with a pistol. Its no wonder that rape increased in Britain and Australia after they enacted massive gun bans.
Another point of Sharkeys is just as revealing: The thought of filmmakers making their movies less gruesome is, to her, the scariest proposition of all.
Why shouldnt this be considered addiction? Addicts live in fear of losing access to their drug(s) of choice, upon which theyve come to depend. The Medical Dictionary notes: Using drugs repeatedly over time changes brain structure and function in fundamental and long-lasting ways. [emphasis added]
Evidence suggests that those long-lasting brain changes are responsible for the distortions of cognitive and emotional functioning that characterize addicts, particularly the compulsion to use drugs.
Why shouldnt watching violent movies cause similar results? This concept is widely accepted by researchers. Heres the conclusion from a group of authors representing the Universities of Arizona, California, Iowa State, Michigan, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin:
Research on violent television and films, video games, and music reveals unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts.
Im not a psychologist, nor am I diagnosing anybody here. But responsible journalists should always reflect on how to best serve society, considering the power weve been given to influence public discourse.
In that vein, we must ponder: If an author is addicted to the vicarious thrills she experiences from watching violence-pornography, then her brain function may have altered to the point that whatever she avers as truth must be examined. Furthermore, if such mental illness exists, then its socially irresponsible for the Times to continue allowing her to publicly praise violence-pornography as a positive force, because such enabling behavior not only damages the authors chances of recovery, but it fosters an environment wherein more get led into addiction. If a major media organization says its okay, such rationalization can convince an impressionable person balanced between conscience and social pressure.
The comment by fhk22553 was particularly noteworthy:
Isnt it amazing that we are asked to believe that a stationary billboard with simply a picture of an ugly (Joe) Camel on it , will make a young adult want to run out and buy a carton of cigarettes , yet , somehow that same young adult will be totally un-affected by watching a 90 minute film with a dozen people either blown-up , shot , or sliced and diced . How does that work ? .Is it magic , or just another case of Liberal Logic-101 . Whats your best guess ? [sic]
[Excerpt]
Read more:
The PJ Tatler » L.A. Times: Violent Movies Don?t Cause Violence, but Guns Do
