Colorado movie theatre shooting

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I am largely completely opposed to censorship of art- as it always come down to one group deciding what everyone else should hear and see and that is more dangerous for a society I think in the long run.

I think I actually agree Petty.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I am largely completely opposed to censorship of art- as it always come down to one group deciding what everyone else should hear and see and that is more dangerous for a society I think in the long run.

In general I'm opposed to censorship of everything unless there is a very clear reason. As far as the question of art though, we're coming close to one of the hypocrisies that really troubles me.

The claim is often made that art is important for society because it causes us to see things in new ways, to challenge our values, to understand other points of view. This is something many artists I've talked to tell with pride.

For the most part I agree with them. But they always like to assume that these changes are universally for the good. "Anything that gets us talking is positive," I've been told.

But there's some really ugly racist literature and music out there, and it's hard for me to see how it can possibly be positive.

There are some of the old-school rap songs that glorify cop killing and specifically inspired some shootings. That's evil in my book.

I know of a torture murder that was spontaneously inspired after watching "Reservoir Dogs". I know of a local bank robbery by kids who'd never committed a crime in their lives after studying a movie called "She got Game". The list goes on and on.

Does child pornography encourage child abuse? Many people seem to think so. Some people call it art.

Orwell can tell you that the copycat syndrome is a well documented effect in criminal behavior. Yet a lot more people watch movies and play video games than watch the news or read newspapers. Since art is designed specifically to influence people, wouldn't you expect it to have an even greater copycat effect?

I'm not arguing for or against censorship at this point. I only wish more artists would have the courage to accept moral responsibility for the dark side of their art. If a movie or a game inspires violence in one in a million viewers, but it's watched by 300,000,000 people that's 300 acts of violence that the artist has created. It's cowardly to deny it.

If you're gonna take credit for the good you've done, you've gotta own the bad as well.

Orwell wrote:I think I actually agree Petty.

Don't worry Orwell. You'll get over it!

"art is important for society because it causes us to see things in new ways"- David

This is a commonly espoused view by artists, but not one I think is true. Never believe what an artist tells you about their work, they like to think they are more importnat and special than they are.
Art is merely how some indivduals reflect on society and present those thoughts back to society. Popular art is where the person making it has struck a feeling, or an idea or a sense of things which chimes with lot of other people- there's nothing more to it than that really.
I dont think art any more than the media leads society, its an afterthought, a reflection on society not a creator of society.

When it comes to racist or sexist or whatever literature, paintings comics ect- their importance is in representing, however misguided, a genuine viewpoint- if nothing else the preservaion of such things is good for the future to be able to look back and get a truer reflection of the past.
A good example of this was Pompey- when it was first uncovered the world was shown beautiful classical art, wall friezes ect- but what they were delibrately not shown were the sexually explicit imagery, the sex toys, or the pic of the guy shagging the goat- these were not 'classical' art and not appropriate for the masses- now they are accessible to the masses and they give us a truer representaion of the times than without them.
Yet the character of the work has not changed- it would still be deemed by many as pornographic and obscene.
And that brings it back to who decides? Some stuffy old academics who think the world would be a better place if the masses didnt know Romans drew porn on their walls? Or worse a government committee?

In the cases of child images or literature that is sexual that is a much trickier area- is Lolita a genuine classic of literature, or just an excuse to read about a young girl?
In general societies have decided that through law, if you are not legally old enough to engage in sexual acts you are not legally old enough to make porn, pose naked ect- and to a certain degree that works.
Despite the media hysteria that pedo's are hiding round every corner waiting to pounce on your child the records show the numbers of pedo's in society (UK at least) has not noticably changed since records began- all that has changed is they have better ways of detecting them and the media has run with pedo stories becasue they sell papers- fear always does.

'I know of a torture murder that was spontaneously inspired after watching "Reservoir Dogs". '- David

I take this sort of thing with a large pinch of salt David- was it really? Or was that just a media excuse, or even a tipping point? If the case was looked into would we find examples of mental illness? Or previous unreported instances, torturing or harming animals for example? I doubt very much some otherwise perfectly normal sane person watched that film and spontaneuosly decided to go torture someone for a laugh. Things are never that simple.

As to 'copycats'- I'll wait for Orwell to chip in on that as he has direct experience of crimes from the policing side. But I am struggling to think of a single copycat crime in the UK during my lifetime, in fact I cant think of any.

"If a movie or a game inspires violence in one in a million viewers, but it's watched by 300,000,000 people that's 300 acts of violence that the artist has created."- David

Again this seems to me to just be shifting blame from the criminal to some artists who had nothing to do with it. If you create something, or write something, even if it is dark, or violent or sexual you cannot try to account for how every single person who might see or read it might act- thats impossible. No artist can be held responsible for how someone reacts to their work, or art itself becomes an impossibility.
As I said earlier the Bible has inspired as many (if not more) nutters than any other work of literature- does that mean God, as the author, is responsible for every act of violence that has followed since? (Actually if there is a God He probably should be responsible as He's omnipotent and should have known- most artists dont have that luxury however).

But Petty, weren't we just agreeing on another thread that Star Trek was a sparkplug for social change during the 70's? It certainly seemed to be to me!
If art has no affect at all on people's thinking, but only just resonates with what they're already thinking, then I see no way to judge the quality of art except by popularity (i.e. the number of people with whom it resonates.)

But if that's the case then Star Trek: Original Series was a failure according to Roddenberry's vision of change (and compared to the higher ratings of "Laugh In"), and Mrs Figg is clearly right about ST Reboot based on how it resonated.

But wait, that would mean that Peter Jackson.....

{{The Reservoir Dogs case is ugly and in a town not far from here. Yes, meth was involved. Two teenage couples partying. The girls started fighting. There was a beating. Ugly enough there, but then they decided to reenact a scene from the movie they'd just watched on the loser. This was the incident that caused me to start rethinking my position on art in society. I started to watch RD again a few years ago, but I couldn't. I had to walk out. }}

weren't we just agreeing on another thread that Star Trek was a sparkplug for social change during the 70's?- David

No, not for change. Rodenberry was doing what I said art does, he was reflecting a feeling of the time, a feeling and sentiment that was growing within society- a good artist, like Rodenberry just sees it more clearly and sooner than most of us- but he did not invent any of the social concepts in ST he was still just reflecting existing attitudes that were taking hold during that period.
His vision happened to be a positive one and that added to the social thinking of the time by taking those already existing messages to a wider audience. But the social upheavels of the 60's and 70's would have not been any different with or without ST.

A good case is Shakespeare Titus Andronicus- it has a torture scene in it which makes the RD one look like a childrens cartoon. Two young men rape a girl, egged on by their own mother. When they have finished with her they cut out her tongue so she can tell no one, then chop of her hands to prevent her writting down who did it and into the bloody stumps they insert branches (for a 'laugh').
It is one of the most disgusting horrific things I have ever seen. From the girl begging the mother as a woman not to let the violation happen to the torture and humilation that follows- it is brutal.
But was Shakespeare promoting violence or reflecting the violence he saw around him?
Should Shakespeare be held partly responsible for the atrocities of his times therefore?

Warning- very horrible indeed! (feel free to watch the whole clip but the relevant parts are 0.00-1.00 and from 6.10-9.30)

Julie Taymor does a wonderful job of bringing in dark humor into a subject that would otherwise be pretty hard to watch (like the cannibalism for example). And I've watched almost everything Tarantino has made (some of it is a lot better than others.)

You know I'm not arguing that violence doesn't belong in art, if anything I'm suggesting almost the opposite. I think violence has a critical place in art because I personally believe that art does influence thoughts and spark debates that can cause real change.

I just believe it's as naive to think that violent art doesn't in some cases inspire violent action, as I think it's naive to think that the presence of guns, axes, or kitchen knives in houses don't in some cases increase the severity of violence. I don't blame the art. I don't blame the knives or the guns, but I do think its appropriate and necessary to discuss their influence.

I just believe it's as naive to think that violent art doesn't in some cases inspire violent action- David

I wouldnt argue that it is doesn't- only that it is not the responsibility of the artist if it does.
And I think the case is way overstated- if it turns out this nutter in the cinema was obsessed with the Joker, or played a lot of a particular game I dont think that really tells you anything as I believe such a person could be sparked off by almost anything- a fight in the street for example or seeing an animal killed. They are a danger waiting to happen.
The spark for it is impossible to predict- and you cant say we will censor this or that, or ban this and that because one person was effected badly by it.
What of the millions of others playing exactly the same game, watching the same films and not killing anyone or being a nutter?
For me taken on balance this shows that the game/film/book is not the cause, or even a contributer, merely the spark or focus for the nutter. And ban one thing and they will still find something to set them off. As I said the Bible is a good inspiration for murder if you want it to be- should we ban it on those grounds? Seems unlikely- yet we will ban films or games or whatever on exactly those grounds.

edit add- I also agree art offers a basis for discussion, and hopefully better undersdtanding- but it comes after the effect- the art which inspire such things is usually itself a response not the cause.

hmmm.... I keep reading this and nearly jumping in so here goes.

I believe that in large part the influence of a particular game or film cannot be held as the cause of these events ( and yes David I know this is a step further than you are suggesting), you can not necessarily link cause and effect that way. It is just as likely that the reason someone watches or plays these particular games/films is because they seek them out due to their particulary personalities.

I equally feel uncomfortable with this need to make it someone elses fault. To suggest an artist is in someway responsible actually places their art on a parallel with the incitement of hatred that can be seen from some individuals. (Although I would also suggest it is a very human response to feel guilt and partial responsibility, to examines one motives if something like this was linked to something you did.)

However I agree that we should look at all infleunces and there is clear evidence, not that these things turn sane individuals into killers, but that exposure to violent games reduces empathy. (see note at end) It is this that is the issue. In an age where these things seem common place, where you spend hours shooting things in a game, it can make it harder to connect to the reality of a situation or truely understand the effects of your actions.

But I have to say rather than ban these games I think it yet again comes back to a simpler issue, parenting.... And I'll take a slightly different example.. the cartoons that are clearly aimed at adults..... South Park, Family Guy, American Dad etc.... The number of my younger students (when South Park first started I had a friend who allowed their five year old to stay up and watch it cause it was a cartoon) who have/do watch these with little or no parental knowledge always surprises me. I'm not saying that they should never see these sorts of things, but it should be with parental knowledge and input.

My mum was recently quite surprised that I had taken Squach to see the hunger games. She's seen it and clearly thought it was somewhat disturbing and violent. She was even more surprised to find out that she has also, with my blessing, read the books dispite my comment that the books were probably worse. The crucial factor to me is that I read them first, before the films and I am aware of both. We talk about allsorts of things and I limit things I think are causing a problem/ are inappropriate.

But I also think, if you are looking at risk factors, the biggest risk has to be the availiabitly of guns so you deal with that first before tackling the other factors.


Note: (The simplest although not necessarily rigorous example actually came from a supernanny expt. They put teenage boys in a room, half played a shoot em up, half a none violent game - for about 40 mins. At the end of this time they got the kids to watch news footage, including from a war zone. i forget how they measured response, but they was far less of a response from those playing the shoot em up.)

The point on exposure an empathy is an intresting one Kafria- and David made a similar point earlier- I am not sold on it as I think the effect is probably temporary and there may be other factors involved (playing a game requires bouts of concentration and focus, games also challenge your puzzle solving at the ame time as they do your shooting- an apprent lack of empathy could in fact just be a tired brain).

On this point I can only respond based on my own experiences where I have never suffered a notable drop in empathy from playing a game or watchig a film. But exposure to real life unpleasentess has had marked effects on me.

Thanks for jumping in Kafia. I absolutely agree that parental input is irreplaceable when it comes to helping kids learn appropriate values when they're first exposed to certain things. Besides violence, this could apply to alcohol, sex, honesty and all the other things that can make adult life complex. For the sake of the discussion let me include guns in that.

When I was a kid, toy guns were only allowed as a training aid. The rule that any gun, even a toy was NEVER pointed in the direction of a person was absolute. If I accidentally let the muzzle drift towards somebody, the toy was taken away for the day. If it was even suspected I'd pointed it towards my little brother in play, it was gone for ever.

Playing soldier, cowboy or cop if it involved pointing even a stick and saying "bang" was forbidden. It still makes me cringe when I see kids playing at killing each other. Rifles were introduced to us with the same care. Not all the kids' parents were quite this strict, but the rules about not pointing guns at people is fundamental to gun culture. When Dick Cheney accidentally shot his hunting partner he lost all respect from the hunting community to this day.

Coming from a background like this, I'm afraid that first person shooting games seem pornographic to me. And just like pornography they're pretty much unavoidable in the modern world. Hopefully parents will help the kids understand them.

{{{And by the way, in case you hadn't guessed I actually agree with Petty more than I let on, but I'm careful not to show it. Agreement seems to make him uncomfortable }}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
On this point I can only respond based on my own experiences where I have never suffered a notable drop in empathy from playing a game or watchig a film.

You'll be pleased to know that Andres Breivik agrees with you! See below:

Confessed Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring Breivik told a court on Thursday he took an entire “sabbatical year” fully devoted to playing the computer game “World of Warcraft” to help him prepare for twin attacks in Norway last year.

In his testimony, the 33-year-old Norwegian said he also played the computer game “Modern Warfare” for 16 months starting in January 2010, primarily to get a feel for how to use rifle sights.

He then revealed he had taken a year-long sabbatical in 2006 when he had decided to carry out what he expected to be a “suicide” operation.

The years’ worth of playing “World of Warcraft” allowed him to cut off social contact, helping him prepare for the attacks, he said. But he added the game-playing was “pure entertainment. It doesn’t have anything to do with July 22.”

......

Breivik said he had expected to be confronted by armed police when he left Oslo for a Labor Party youth camp on Utoya island, where he killed 69 people in a shooting massacre. No one stopped Breivik as he drove to the island dressed in a homemade uniform. He carried a rifle and a handgun - and named them both after weapons used by Norse gods.

A total of 77 people were killed in the twin attacks.

......

He told the court he had prepared for a firefight with police in Oslo by playing computer games, focusing on situations where he would be flanked by two commando teams.

“I estimated the chances of survival as less than 5 percent,” he said.

Breivik has confessed to the attacks but rejects criminal guilt, saying he was acting to protect Norway and Europe by targeting left-wing political forces he claims have betrayed the country by opening it up to immigration.

Breivik also listened to "Requiem for a Tower", the song used in a lot of LOTR trailers, while committing the massacre. In his manifesto he expressly mentioned The Lord of the Rings in relation to the song. I don't think that the tastes of (presumably) mentally ill people who commit extreme acts of violence provide a firm basis for generalized statements about society as a whole.

Eldorion wrote: I don't think that the tastes of (presumably) mentally ill people who commit extreme acts of violence provide a firm basis for generalized statements about society as a whole.

That wasn't what I was intending to do. If I had a purpose (other than baiting Petty to keep the discussion going) it would have been to raise the question, "Is it possible that violent images could have an influence on mentally ill people?"

Is that a fair question? Is anybody prepared to say it's impossible?

Violence is all around us and all the way through us. Most folk are aware it is not (generally) a good thing for us or those around us and so refrain from physically indulging in it (most of the time).

I seriously dislike graffic excess violence (especially for some reason when it's sex related - that seems a particular abomination), but even if one or two (in billions of people on earth) get driven to it by shows, well, I would still be wary of censorsing. Open discussion of right and wrong is a better weapon than hiding totally from the nasty side of life.


Big Brother?

The Spanish Inquisition?

Muslim Terrorism?

All would suppress life in it's entirety, and give humanity simple answers (and rules) instead. And, of course, favour censorship.

"Is it possible that violent images could have an influence on mentally ill people?"- David

From my own experiences working with mental health issues and dealing with patients I would say the answer to that is most definetly yes.
However from my own experiences you can add, traffic lights changing, a dog barking, only seeing one Magpie, a yapping dog, the wrong sort of sausage, fireworks, at least two buses and a stuck lid on a jam jar to violent images, which can influence and set off someone with a mental illness into acts of violence.
I dont see how society legislates for that myself- and certainly not through censorship.

Ok these people need a carer- they weren't going to pass for normal on their own but I have also learned a truth over the years- everyone is mad the only difference is in degrees.

Orwell- I have to agree on censorship- it is not a solution, its the potential start of a problem.

Yes, and I'm reminded I have not seen any new chapters of "Home", Petty. These references to Mental Illness made me think of it again. Get on with it, laddie!

{{{I often think of your staff member giving ol' John that morself of cake. Very irresponsible. Hugely moving. I remember John's happiness. Hooray for people who break the rules when it's called for! You know, if he had been caught he would have been slammed by armchair healthcare and community experts! ... Hooray for genuine heroes! Some people would want to censor out that kind of irresponsbility, come to think! }}}

Funnly enough Orwell, after taking a break and a bit of distance from it (I still couldn't get the structure right and it was driving me to distraction) I went back to writing new stuff for it just last night. Spooky!

Orwell: I'm a little dubious about that. The John Sibolt (sorry, I'm too lazy to check the name just now) chapter was pretty perfect. Take that approach for each 'chapter' and you'll be fine. Sort of like a selection of short stories, though closely set in time and place. That's my advice. And me being me, I think you should take it. (Don't touch the John chapter, except for minor grammatical stuff, you hear! )

I think its very simple, if you let children watch brutal video games it will brutilize them, some will be more affected than others, but all will be altered by it. If adults watch brutal video games they will become hardened to it, and will need ever more extreme brutality to keep it interesting. Like pornography brutilizes in its own way if constant bombardment its the same deal. If you use naked women to sell products sooner or later it will become normalized and as a result womens bodies become mere product dressing. Art is completely different from this as nobody in their right mind would call these mass produced cheap violent games 'art'. Art can be positive force in society not negative, think of Dadaism and Picassos Guernica, to say 'dont trust an artist because he is egotistic' is rather spiteful, some contemporary artists risk life and limb to express themselves, think of Chinese or Russian one of my favourite artists is Yuri Norstein who has a history of troubles with the then powerful kgb. basically take a vulnerable person and stuff their head with violent images and sooner or later they are going to do damage either to themselves or other people, whether its becoming withdrawn and isolated or doing something extreme.

nobody in their right mind would call these mass produced cheap violent games 'art'. - Mrs Figg

I would- as valid as cinema and TV at least. Not all games will be considered art but cerainly its a medium full of artists. Evry part of a game is an artistic representaion.
Dear Esther- in which you just walk about an island uncovering parts of the story delvered in poetic verse. And this was published from a major games company. One of many games I consider have artistic value.



And I think the artwork in Syrim, the archecture and landscapes and weather and sunsets and aurora are all worthy of as much prasie as any set designers, or costume designers get regards their art.
And Skyrim is violent. So is Silent Hill 2- I consider it art as well. And it is a mass franchise.

Mrs Figg wrote:I think its very simple, if you let children watch brutal video games it will brutilize them, some will be more affected than others, but all will be altered by it. If adults watch brutal video games they will become hardened to it, and will need ever more extreme brutality to keep it interesting. Like pornography brutilizes in its own way if constant bombardment its the same deal. If you use naked women to sell products sooner or later it will become normalized and as a result womens bodies become mere product dressing. Art is completely different from this as nobody in their right mind would call these mass produced cheap violent games 'art'. Art can be positive force in society not negative, think of Dadaism and Picassos Guernica, to say 'dont trust an artist because he is egotistic' is rather spiteful, some contemporary artists risk life and limb to express themselves, think of Chinese or Russian one of my favourite artists is Yuri Norstein who has a history of troubles with the then powerful kgb. basically take a vulnerable person and stuff their head with violent images and sooner or later they are going to do damage either to themselves or other people, whether its becoming withdrawn and isolated or doing something extreme.

I think parents etcetera should show a bit of commonsense about what they let their kids watch, Mrs Figg. That's only.. err.. commonsense! People wo have turned from little wild animals into thinking humans should be allowed to apply their intellect to things - and, generally, uncensored.

Actually, watching excessive violence turns me off excessive violence.

{{{Excessive sexuality, though, turns me on to excessive sexuality! }}}

And here's what Colorado thinks about the gun control idea:

Gun sales spike in Colorado after shooting, just like they did in Arizona
By Dylan Stableford, Yahoo! News
Gun sales in Colorado have spiked since last week's massacre, The Denver Post reports.

Background checks jumped more than 41 percent since Friday's shooting that left 12 dead and 58 injured during a midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" at an Aurora movie theater. Over the weekend, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation approved background checks for 2,887 people who wanted to purchase a firearm, the Post said, an increase of 43 percent over the previous weekend.

"It's been insane," Jake Meyers, an employee at Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo in Parker, Colo., told the paper.

Spikes in gun sales are not uncommon in the aftermath of mass shootings like the one in Colorado. Following the January 2011 shooting that killed six and wounded more than a dozen others—including former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords—in Tucson, sales of handguns soared more than 60 percent in the state, according to FBI data. Similar spikes were seen after the massacres at Virginia Tech and Columbine.

Some of those seeking to buy guns in Colorado over the weekend said they were seeking to arm themselves for protection in the wake of the shooting, according to the report. But many were likely fearful of a change in gun laws. Democratic state Rep. Rhonda Fields of Aurora told the paper she wants Congress to reinstate a ban on assault weapons.

"When something like this happens people get worried that the government is going to ban stuff," Greg Wolff, an Arizona gun shop owner, told Bloomberg.com after the rampage in Tucson.

They also get worried when a Democrat is about to take office. Before President Barack Obama's 2008 election, there was a spike in gun sales, and gun shop owners and manufacturers have reported similarly brisk buying in 2012.

"It's definitely the election year," Jason Hanson, a former CIA officer, told Fox News in March. "People feel that Obama will serve second term and with it their gun rights with taken away, so they are stocking up."

i just dont understand it at all I'm afraid. Really I don't. I am completly baffled here.

If one of the folk in the audience had a gun to shoot back with, there may have been less deaths; maybe none , as the shooter exhibited everything I associate with celebrity-hungry cowards. Why take on the defended when you can attack the defenceless? Mind, he may have chosen a pre-school instead. (Should be pre-school teachers be armed? Good question really).

If one of the folk in the audience had a gun to shoot back with, there may have been less deaths; maybe none- Orwell

Or maybe in the dark of a cinema, in the panic and the chaos if several people had pulled guns as others are trying to scramble out the way in terror more would have been killed.