As has been said before in this forum, it would really help some misunderstandings among viewers if people would read the original article before making comments. Also, we should get back onto the topic of Brown's interview and not get sidetracked by Thompson's random post. That being said, I read the article and was still confused about the last paragraph quoted on GP until I reread the paragraph a few times. Certainly Brown's correction in the comments are helpful, but his original words are somewhat confusing unless you pay hard attention to his train of thought.

Brown's argument is compelling nevertheless, and many of the things he says makes sense. The shocking condition he discloses about Columbine High School's management and administration is starkly revealing, and his idea that a whole mess of events led to the shooting is quite logical. About the only things that I didn't agree with were his ideas that religion and competitive sports should be removed from school.

Competitive sports, although it does attract a number of, to be frank, assholes, is not a bad thing in spirit. It only becomes bad if the administration and student body stoop to elevate the players to ridiculous status. In the same thread, religion might lead to some egotistical preening, but many religious people do NOT try to hold their perceived "holy" status above others. I myself am an atheist, but I respect the rights of others to believe in religion because I recognize that religion offers people important things such as a code of ethics and hope. However, I do not appreciate it when a religious person comes up to me and tries to convert me to their religion. In the same manner, I don't try to push my atheism on someone who believes in God.

@ Black Manta
I read the article you mentioned by Wong, and I found it quite an interesting and amusing read. I myself already believed and understood most of the content, but it stated ideas that should be understood by any game critic, regardless of stance, in an easily readable manner. I also liked his article on "The Ultimate War Sim" (very good).

@ Jack Thompson
What can I say that hasn't already been said? I address you with tact and reserve because I am familiar with etiquette, although the same cannot be said about everyone on the Internet (unfortunately), and this applies to this site as well. However, you continually address us, by which I refer to the polite, considerate viewers in this site, with a general lack of professional courtesy and respect. It is a breach of forum etiquette to randomly post entries that do not relate to the topic being discussed, and as you have broken this rule several times, I would like to ask you in a dignified manner to please send any announcements you have to Dennis if you wish to have it announced. Additionally, the word "Hooah!" is a word generally used by the armed forces. Since I am relatively certain that you have NOT served, I would ask that you refrain from using this word. Finally, I have noticed that you have a bad habit of posting something in a forum and then not responding to criticisms and comments upon your comments. As this is a form of debate, it is only fair that you respond to criticisms of your statement, even if you respond only to the criticisms that are logical and answerable (which unfortunately, and I will agree with you here, are not all of the criticisms).

@ Mr Thompson

In the future, please cite your sources whenever possible. If you have a valid, reliable source and are not misinterpreting it, then you can talk about how games turn kittens into killers, metaphorically.

Think about it in terms of logic:
(also note that kittens = gamers and killers = criminals in the following logical assertion)

FACTS:
* Not all killers are kittens, not all kittens are killers
* Some killers are kittens, and some kittens are killers

Picture a Venn Diagram now (the one with the intersecting circles), where one circle represents killers and the other represents kittens. I don't have exact numbers, but considering the number of cases reported (here and otherwise) where kittens have been killers, those two circles will have a very small intersection point. Let's be generous and assert that every kitten you have accused of being a killer is true. The circles representing those populations are still extremely small. My guess is that, of the total population, at most 5% is both kitten and killer. There is very likely a different population that has a greater intersection with the killer population. Maybe, gangs and poverty-stricken families? With a stronger intersection, reducing this other population is more likely to reduce the killer population as well. For example, provide opportunities for poor families to be less poor. At least to a point where they don't find it necessary to commit crimes in the hopes of gaining their fare.

Anyway, there wasn't really a point to all that. It's just fun to make logical assertions despite the fact that opponent is too caught up in his own reasoning to take a step back and look at the possible merit of another person's point of view.

@ Erik

Good point...

The only reason i can think that would cause real violence is a smart person in a crowd of stupid people. Cause no matter what the smart person would always be subected towards the prejuduce of the stupid people.

And then eventually the rampage will assue and the stupid people will beat up the smart person.

Cause that is just the unnatural order of the human race. Survival of the dumbest.

John Bruce Thompson, don't you have a massacre to go chase somewhere? It's about all you seem to be good at, since your legal skills are certainly questionable at best.

@ Jack Thompson

Seriously...quit saying "hooah", that's a cheer for the armed forces and their supporters and as everyone can tell, you are neither.

"
if someone addicted to heroin robs a store to get his fix, heroin shares the blame. And if games are, as he says, so addictive that kids can go through such extreme withdrawals they murder, games are to blame.
"

sorry but you can't blame this stuff for someone's actions. they are inanimate objects. it's the person's fault that they got addicted to the stuff in the first place so 100% of the blame goes to the person who did the crime. even though you are addicted to heroin you still have a choice.

I think he's misunderstanding the theory. Jerald Block isn't saying taking Doom away sent them on a killing spree. He's saying the spree would have happened much earlier if they hadn't gotten sidetracked by Doom. I think the theory is rather dubious, but it's not what Brooks Brown thinks it is.

Calculators use devil math!

[...] Columbine Survivor Dismisses Shrink’s Doom Deprivation Theory [...]

Danial and Fandal

While i can understand your logic and all, it's not to say that your wrong or right, this issue is far to complex and has far to many factor to be blaming it on anything other then the actions of the shooters. While you could make an argument against games, you could do the same for guns, school officials, and the parents. Games are just a way for Guys like Harris and Klhebold to get out of being held accountable for there actions. Course, in ther case, they aren't around anymore anyway, and people need someone to blame. So they attack games. Same as it ever was.

@ Jt.

I read all the documents for the alabama case JT, and I seem to recall an order revoking your license in that state which states you can't have anything to do with that case, yes?

Or did you just decide to ignore it that order, and are violating the law as a result.

Also, I've read a number of evidence lists, witness lists, and more, and there strangly, no actual "Experts" on it. Theres some well known Lobbists but unless you have any names to back your claims, then your simply blowing smoke.

Prove it or shut up jt. Whats the matter, afraid?

Mr. Thompson, your 'mountain' (or should i say anthill) of evidence DOES NOT EXIST.

Wasn't Jack banned? What's he doing back on the site?

Heroin is, by itself, addictive. It creates a strong physical addiction, which throws your body's chemical balance into chaos if you stop using it. In contrast, video games create absolutely no physical addiction. A competent doctor will tell you that the cause of addictions to things like video games is something called an "addictive personality".

@Erik:

And for the thousandth time he's just going to ignore it, so save your breath.

(Got nothing else to say, as I see no point.)

@Zigs

Still, I think it would be better to be rid of him anyway, he only serves to cause both and wasted time even for the opposition, I would much rather have a rational opponent than Jack, Even if the next guy is rational and competent, it only means hed try for mroe realitic chnaged and maybe even go for the parental guidance apect that we're shouting about.

its a service not only to us, the opposition and the field of law to get rid of Jack, its a service rendered to the entire human race that scum like him are kept out of the important decisions.

@Chris

In modern day Jack is to the Video Game Industry as Ted Haggard is to Atheists. They both win more for my side by making their side look really stupid.

Just for the record. Causal != casual. I'm sure some are just typo's, but keep in mind that the word is cAUsal, not casual. It makes a huge difference.

What I got from the story is that if you believe games do not influence people enough to cause homicide, then you can't accept that "withdrawal" from games causes homicide, because both take personal choice out of the mix. Ultimately, those murderers made a lot of choices that were not related to the games they played. The biggest one would be an untreated mental illness. Ironically, Brown attempted to get that checked by reporting the death threat.

I've also learned enough from comment boards that just because someone says he's JT, attorney, does not me he is THE JT, attorney. It could just as easily be someone trying to make him appear foolish.

@Jack Thompson, failure as an Attorney

I'm sure the Alabama judge would love to know you claiming this.

Also, you're working to circumvent and destroy the very same freedoms that the men and women of our armed forces are fighting to protect, that my father over two and a half decades ago was fighting to protect, so you have absolutely NO RIGHT to use that saying, since you are working to take away the freedoms that people who ACTUALLY put their lives on the line are protecting.

Hell, you want a proven murderer to go free because you think that a game company should take the rap for this. You are advocating the release of murderers and rapists because you think a game company is responsible for their actions, not they themselves.

You're a sick, SICK man. You're not out to protect kids, otherwise you wouldn't have demanded out personal information. You're only out to line your wallet and to forge your own world

I think it's worth noting that you can't have evidence to support that violent games do NOT result in violent behaviour. It's the whole "proving a negative" thing.

You can have evidence that shows no statistical increase in violence among gamers, no long-term negative effects from playing games, no correlational links between killers and whether or not they played games, and so on and so forth. All these things have been shown in the past.

Remember the burden of proof? Basic logic 101. Also remember the negative proof fallacy: "X is true because you have no proof that X is false" is not a valid argument.

I have an idea for you, Jack. I hope you consider this carefully. I'm going to make a statement and I want you to show me evidence that I'm wrong.

"Step on a crack, break your mother's back."

Wheel out scientists who say that there's no connection between your footfall and another person at another point in time and space. Wheel out statisticians who will assert that there is no correlation between parents' broken spines and children's pavement activities. Rationalists will argue that there's no reason why where you drop your plates should affect the health of your biological parent.

Meanwhile, I bring out a few cases where people have had broken backs and demonstrate that their kids did, in fact, step on cracks when they were younger.

Prove me wrong.

@Fandel

Problem is when we try to break that stereotype, some idiot comes in and sets the argument back a full year

@jack (I hope this time the real one)
An opinion that has been dismissed as evidence by the courts is poor evidence, no matter what congress thinks about. A mountain of shit still remains shit.

And there has not been a casual link between violence and videogames found in any official study. You keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. That is the essence of insanity.
We keeping doing the same thing over and over again, expecting the same result everytime, so we are quite sane.

Jack, your lies alone should be enough to get you kicked out by the Florida Bar.

@thompson

if you and your "experts" are right about doom and games like it, you would be seeing MILLIONS of school shootings. the shear fact that you are not is more than enough evidence to discredit your accusations.

@jt

just cause you got some guys who figured out how to make fake degrees on a computer doesnt mean you have experts it means you are commiting perjury

@predatorian

the best statistic is more deaths are caused by falling coconuts than snark attacks and thus also videogames.


Before you ban videogames, you have to introduce public safety laws that prevent coconuts being raised above 10ft of anyones head...

@the1jeffy

he doesnt cite sports as a cause, only that the negative influence it has become lead to superiority and bullying, he actually acknowledged that it could do a lto of good things but the intitutional nature of it had lead to the caste separation and thus bullying, saying it should be removed as manditory from schools. his anecdotes like kicking the girld from school because of her retraining order against a basketball player.

He doesnt balme the sports, only what theyve become, if it were seperate from the school then maybe it would be better off.

The only two main things he blames are bullying and police failure.

I only read what was posted on GP and got the idea that he was only arguing against the theory (The last sentence quoted helped a lot).

It was an interesting interview.

And the heroin comment was intended to be sarcastic from what I can tell. He was saying that using the Doom Deprivation theory Heroin should be held responsible for an addicts actions. Think we should sue Miller for a drunks actions?

He berates people for blaming inanimate objects, but does admit that your entertainment will affect you. Thinking about a road as a Burnout track while driving down it (remember Halo in Disneyland?). The music you listen to, movies you watch, and games you play will affect you, but that doesn't mean they will make you do something. I know a few of you quote Family Guy or certain movies ("Oh, behave"). You do things by choice. That's called personal responsibility.

He is right about one thing. Columbine was the result of a "Perfect Storm" of failure. The students, parents, police, and faculty all failed those boys and their victims. It's not their fault, that responsibility lies solely with Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, but they could of prevented it.

I disagree with the idea of banning religion in school, though. Religion is a personal choice. You can't punish a person for choosing to follow a certain path. If he would punish the Christians, Muslims, or whatever in school, he's no better than the 'jocks' that picked on him. And the idea of banning sports shows his bias. Doesn't seem like he can let go of the actions of a few idiots in high school.
(BTW: if anything, I'm agnostic)

All in all, it was a decent read.

Hey, that last paragraph that GP quoted was unclear, I had to re-read it (over at Destructiod) several times to see what he was getting at. Overall, I like Brooks Brown's views on the matter, and he certainly is more well informed than "Dr." Block is.

But he goes as far as saying the high school sports are to blame. That's just as stupid a scapegoat as blaming video games. High School sports CAN be a positive influence, just as video games CAN be. But both can be negative, too. It all depends on the coaches, parents, and the kids. Let's blame the sports, yeah, it's all the jock's fault. Watch Breakfast Club and realize that those with authority over these kids are causing these issues. I realize it's cliche, but a decent way of looking at it.

And also, cut out the holier than thou "Read the article," and the idiotic, "This guy blames my video games," crapola and get to discussing the content. There's a great interview to be discussed, let's not get caught in the knee-jerk and the knee-jerk to the knee-jerk. GP Readers are better than this.

Brown has some interesting things to say about the influence of games on us gamers. I like his tack. He's got a very mature outlook on the whole situation, which is better than many, many MSM report about Columbine. I love that I've seen 3 or 4 Colombine survivors that have grown into mature, reasoned adults.

Well... way to assume again. I read the article WHEN IT WAS POSTED ON DTOID. Yes, games aren't being put forth as the main reason, but he does take both sides of the debate on occasion. He DOES claim that the doom-depravation wasn't the cause (sole or not isn't important), but he claims that the doom-depravation, is proof that games are to blame. He likely meant to clarify that IF the doom-depravation theory was correct, then games are still to blame. However, from my understanding, that was never an argument in the first place.

People need to start looking at FACTS, and not eat up every 'theory' on a subject. Additionally, people need to stop being dicks *cough*DarrelBT*cough* for the sake of being a dick. You made a ridiculous generalization, got called out on it. Stop defending your retarded claim and accept that you were wrong.

I dont know about everyone else whos posted, but from the GP post alone I got the message that he wasnt blaming games and merely highlighting the danger of doom-deprivation through the heroin analogy.

Its seems some of us gamers even can be up in arms over not enough information just like the general public is about games already. Just proves the point that gamers arent any different than the rest of the population, and we share all its downsides including psychopaths and ignorance.

@Terrible Tom

Okay okay, that's fair enough.

To be fair, I was almost angry when I read the Game Politics post because I couldn't believe he said that, but when I checked the actual article, his reasoning makes a valid point and the whole "Games and drugs" line was just a metaphor.

Jesus. Wow. Let's completely miss the point of what he was saying more.

I don't understand why we are still talking about Columbine having anything to do with video games. I really fail to see the point of it all.

I did read the article, but I still think he isn't accepting the fact that they are 100% responsible for their actions. Its on their shoulders and no one elses.

@Terrible Tom

Yes, but that isn't the issue here. The issue is that most posters so far misread the post and ASSUMED that he was blaming the games. and such.

@Terrible Tom

Did I say "you" exactly? I'm aware that you would read the article. I know you're better than that.

But you better try and tell me that THIS is by a poster who has read the actual article:

# DeusPayne Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 11:49 am

Yeah, it seems like he’s having his cake and eating it too. He claims that the ‘doom-deprivation’ theory is wrong, but also says that games are to blame, citing the ‘doom-deprivation’ theory.


So yes, Terrible Tom, I have a right to insult some of the posters here for not reading the actual article because THEY DIDN't READ THE ACTUAL ARTICLE.

Oh I know you do. I just wanted to be clear I read the article. =)

I usually arguing against people who haven't read the article can be easily ended by pulling a few statements out of the interview. No need to insult all GP readers.

@Darrel

Are you insane? Reading the article is for tools. I mean if I don't read it on slashdot why the hell would I read an article here?

Has anyone bothered to read the ACTUAL article?

http://www.destructoid.com/destructoid-interview-columbine-alumnus-respo...

In no way did he says that the games are too blame totally.

"So the games do affect us - but only in the ways we are ready for them to. Just like books, just like movies, just like television, and just like advertisements. I mean, if all media affected everyone the same, marketing would be way too easy of a job, right?"

Tl;dr READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.

Okay, it's obvious by reading the original comments that no one on Gamepolitics bothers to take the time to read the original story. If you actually read the interview on Destructod, you will see that Brooks actually takes both sides to task. He criticises game critics like Jack Thompson for being zealots, but he also criticizes gamers for being a bunch of immature assholes -- an issue that I believe gamers need to address if they're ever going to be taken seriously.


http://www.destructoid.com/destructoid-interview-columbine-alumnus-respo...

Also, he mainly criticizes Dr. Block for getting basic facts Eric and Dylan wrong.

So, if gamers are so willing to defend this Doctor who happens to defend videogames, despite the fact that he uses facts that are clearly not true, how does that make those gamers -- and the Doctor -- any diffrent than Jack Thompson?

@ Terrible Tom: Well said, as usual. Personal responsibility (both for self and projected on others) is a fleeting value. Why would anyone want to take responsibility for their actions when they can blame society, parents, peer pressure, the 'man'...

I think he just doesn't want Eric and Dylan to take full responsibility for their own actions.

To be honest I think this world is afraid of responsibility. They claim being responsible means restricting violent and sexual imagery from children's eyes but really thats not responsibility. Responsibility is teaching your children what is right and whats is wrong. Responsibility is preserving freedom and liberty for everyone and not giving it away to try to enforce your culture onto EVERYONE so that somehow society will become more pleasant.

Fact is if you neglect to educate your children thats YOUR responsibility. If you neglect to pay attention to what they are being entertained by that is your responsibility. If you take someone else's life that is YOUR responsibility.

If a heroin addict robs a store to get his fix heroin is not to blame. The addict that commited the crime is to blame. Every individual is responsible for his or her actions.

If you want to play that blame game and say people aren't responsible for their own actions then maybe we can put some blame on religion. Under these ideas Religion can be blamed for many murders, many wars and many wrong doings in society. If you really want to cut to the chase in controlling what individuals are influenced by the first target should be religion. But of course there is this thing called the Constitution. I guess not many people are very fond of this document.

I don't think the fact that the shooters were banned from playing video games longer than people assumed has any bearing whatsoever to Dr. Block's theory.

His theory basically said that in the absence of video games, the boys found other ways to channel their aggressions. The length of their video game ban has nothing to do with that basic premise. You could, in fact, probably argue that the longer they couldn't play video games, the more likely their aggression would've been let out in an unproductive way.

Jack, you want evidence to the contrary? Here goes:

1) No study has ever actually shown video games to cause violent behavior; only that a positive correlation exists.

2) Studies that have been conducted have been in laboratory settings, and do not reflect how someone will behave in the real world.

3) The studies use proxies for aggression, such as noise blasts and hitting dolls, rather than having the subjects actually attack each other with the intent to injure one another.

4) There is the problem of demand characteristics: in order to be seen as "good subjects," research participants will behave in accordance with the researcher's hypothesis. People entering a study on aggression will therefore be predisposed to act aggressively.

All this was in the amicus brief filed by criminologists, psychologists, and media experts in the Kendrick and St. Louis County cases. That's pretty heavy contrary evidence.

Yes, Jack was thrown off the Alabama case, but despite that, he remains active on it outside the court and claims to be an active participant in it, despite such. His reasoning is because the judge is wrong, and he himself has never been wrong in his life because he is infallible. You see, in his world, where the sky is green and unicorns can be found around every corner, the judge is just one part of a vast conspiracy or websites, lawyers, other judges, websites, and private citizens who are all out to get him like the boogeyman because he is a christain working at the right hand of god and is as pure as the driven snow.

So being on 60 Minutes makes you an expert?

Man have we got problems.

Mmm... as if this thread wasn't cluttered enough with useless crap, here comes the JT shitstorm.

What Brown says about the culture surrounding sports in American high school should resonate to some degree with everyone who lived outside the confines of the cult of popularity that surrounds high school sports. (and related activities like drill teams and cheerleading). The appearance is that schools bend over backwards to tolerate, excuse and cover up the (sometimes criminal) behavior those involved. And what's truly sad is that from what I can tell, this hasn't changed in the three decades since I graduated from school. I saw the same things occuring while my own kids went through high school (my kids followed the nerd path just like their dad). It saddened me to realize how many "educators" appear to choose to go into teaching because it allows them to continue their participation in the "cult of popularity" culture permeating schools. How many teachers (male and female) did you know going through school who wanted to be referred to as "coach"? In my daughter's 7th grade year ... all four history teachers went by that designation. I'm convinced this has much to do with the perpetuation of behavior tolerance prevalent in schools.