It's not the Music!!

[nick1979]

It’s like this. You take a native from some remote island, which has never seen a gun or a violent movie, he is not going to go crazy, get a gun, and start shooting people. He has never been exposed to this and no has idea about it. Though he may become violent it will be in a way that he knows. I can see where “the arts” can give people ideas, but they are still responsible for doing the deed.

------------------

[Sazerac]

I'm not really sure what was said, but my own take on this (once more) is that until people stop "passing the buck" and take personal responsibility for their own actions, the current situation won't change. I think that's what Yorick was saying, although I'm not quite sure.

On the "Clockwork Orange" thing: I used that as an example of how someone could potentially interpret or blame Alex's behavior on the basis of Beethoven or old musicals; an absurd premise. The character of Alex represents a societal atavism; a "degenerate" of the race. He is not so much immoral as amoral. In his eventual "treatment" he gets messed up worse than he ever was because the "symptoms" of his aberrant behavior are treated rather than the root cause, whatever it may be.

As far as the music/gaming/what-have-you connection goes, if there is violence and discord inherent in them, that may be more of a reflection of current society and what standards it holds rather than any aspect of individual action or choice. That area is so convoluted and nonlinear there is almost no way of extracting "cause" or "effect" from it; other than to say, a society that glorifies violence should not be surprised that it produces violence. No blame, just an end result.



------------------

[Yorick]

Originally posted by trux: I do see the connection but I think it's a little absurd. By the way you explain the bat and the window situation every human being on the planet is to blame for murder, rape, etc. in some way, and not only do I not believe that, I flat out laugh at that. If you're right about that scenario, we'd all have to live in a vacuum of space and thought to affect any sort of change. Is that what we should do?

No, not live like we are in a vacuum where our actions have no consequence. Change the things we can, see our spending dollars for what they are - power in the capitalist world, and much fought over by advertisers for example - and use them wisely. Also do what we are doing now. Discuss, talk, spread the world. There is power in co-operation.

Why do you think we have T.V. ratings? The stations are slaves to the ratings because peoples jobs are on the line if they drop. When I did the promo circut, I spoke to radio execs who had to lay off people when they lost market share, the advertisers who desired to reach that market, and the funds from those advertisers. Consequently some of those stations were being very risk shy and only going for sure things with their programming.

Look at hollywood, so much of a movies content is geared to giving the public what the makers believe the public wants. The public wants thrills spills effects violence etc don't they? Look at the new "planet of the apes" (check the thread) totally geared as a blockbuster, despite the slower paced intellectual nature of the original.

How do the public voice what they want? By buying tickets! In the other thread I was encouraging people to see the new POA! I'm doubly at fault.

I don't feel guilty, just aware. This is not about guilt but recognition of ones role in the gears that drive things. En-masse we have a greater voice, but we are still a collection of individuals, and it is at this level that each of us can either effect change, or support the status quo.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 08-20-2001).]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by nick1979: It’s like this. You take a native from some remote island, which has never seen a gun or a violent movie, he is not going to go crazy, get a gun, and start shooting people. He has never been exposed to this and no has idea about it. Though he may become violent it will be in a way that he knows. I can see where “the arts” can give people ideas, but they are still responsible for doing the deed.

Nick this is so what I'm saying. So "it" in a nutshell mate. Rock on...



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[AzureWolf]

Originally posted by AngelofDeath: uhhh, last time I checked, pot is illegal.

It IS?!?! Why did noone tell me?



------------------

"I was born of darkness. My fathers eyes closed before mine opened. I am not of this world or the other, and I have the right to be what I am..."

[SSJ4Sephiroth]

well, i never said that they shouldnt at least be a LITTLE bit responsible, but its not their fault if some person goes off blazing guns into a shcool or something. its the intent of the person, not the corporation, that kills people. sure, i believe that they should be slightly responsible in what they let pass on to the public, but they cant be held to even a fraction of the responsibility of the person who does this. this might not seem related to some of you, but to me it is, so ill use the following example. you all remember the Colombine murders a few years ago right? well, they (the media) blamed video games mostly for their attack, because they used the game Doom to practice killing their classmates and used a special mod to use yearbook photos on their enemies. i do not condone this action, but the gaming companies are not to blame for actions, neither are the music companies, tv industry, or hollywood. they may let some things pass that shouldnt, and i feel they should be a bit more responsible in that regard. however, its a persons choice whether to play a game, to listen to a song, to watch a show or see a movie. using the excuse that doing any of those things caused them to kill a person(s) just isnt right, because theyre merely passing their blame on to a big company, and of course the people will believe it and hate the company for the mere fact that its a company. some mother organization will begin picketing out in front of thier HQ, saying that they should be censored and that ratings should be higher. thats always how these things happen, and its not how it should. human will may be fickle and easily influenced, but if someone claims that some movie or game or song can make you go shoot up some place, then i think theyre just using that as an excuse to avoid the consequences. i dont think i can say this enough, but its the individual that commits the crime, its the individual that should get the punishment, not the corporation. well, im starting to get a bit repetetive, so ill just post this before people decide to skip my post for something shorter.

Whoa, i think this is the longest post ive ever made except for my story posts on my guild forum!

------------------
With each kill, I grow wiser, and with added wisdom, I grow stronger. Does anybody have any idea what this means?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Sazerac: ..... my own take on this..... is that until people stop "passing the buck" and take personal responsibility for their own actions, the current situation won't change.... ....there is almost no way of extracting "cause" or "effect" from it; other than to say, a society that glorifies violence should not be surprised that it produces violence. No blame, just an end result.

Spot on.



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[trux]

Whoa, a lot has gone on since I left. Had to go mow the lawn - ugh!

Well, I just wrote out a very long and indepth response to all that's been said, responding point by point, but I forgot to type in my username and password, and when I went back in my browser it was all gone. I can't remember everything I said. But here goes.

I agree with everything that everyone has said except your one example Yorick...

Originally posted by Yorick: Look at it like this. If a loopy nut decides to imitate the film, picture it like a luny standing on a wall smashing a window with a bat. Various people made the bricks, others put them together to build the wall, and others gave him the bat, while others told him the windowl was responsible for his loopyness. So he goes, climbs the wall and smashes the window with the bat. Without the bricks, bat or suggestion the event could not have occured, so all are to "blame". The loopy nut still, of his own volition decides to grab the bat, listen and obey the suggestion, climb the wall and smash the window. Four actions of his own volition. Of course he is responsible, but is SUPPORTED and AIDED by many others.

It's thinking like this that allows people who commit crimes to get away with making wild assertions that "the music" made them do it. The man who made the brick you speak of, the contractor who erected the walls with the bricks, they have nothing to do with someone's PERSONAL decision to smash a window. In my opinion it's ridiculous to think otherwise. I understand your point that everyone needs to know their place in the grand scheme of things, but don't you think it's a little out of line to "blame" someone for doing their job?

John Hinkley, Jr. saw Taxi Driver and attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan because he thought Jodi Foster wanted him to do it. Could you tell me with a straight face that Martin Scorscese or Robert DeNiro are even the slightest bit responsible for Hinkley's decision to shoot Reagan? Hinkley shot Reagan because he had a screw loose, because he could not tell right from wrong, because he could not assertain the difference between fiction and reality. This is not the director's fault or the actor's fault, it's not Reagan's fault or the gun-manufacturer's fault, it's not society's fault and it's not the guy who printed the movie to film's fault - it's Hinkley's fault. It was his decision, his action, his violence.

P.S.

Originally posted by AngelofDeath: uhhh, last time I checked, pot is illegal. Originally posted by AzureWolf: It IS?!?! Why did noone tell me?

They told me, I just don't listen.


------------------
a bunch of long hairs.
trux

[Yorick]

Originally posted by trux: It's thinking like this that allows people who commit crimes to get away with making wild assertions that "the music" made them do it. The man who made the brick you speak of, the contractor who erected the walls with the bricks, they have nothing to do with someone's PERSONAL decision to smash a window. In my opinion it's ridiculous to think otherwise. I understand your point that everyone needs to know their place in the grand scheme of things, but don't you think it's a little out of line to "blame" someone for doing their job? John Hinkley, Jr. saw Taxi Driver and attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan because he thought Jodi Foster wanted him to do it. Could you tell me with a straight face that Martin Scorscese or Robert DeNiro are even the slightest bit responsible for Hinkley's decision to shoot Reagan? Hinkley shot Reagan because he had a screw loose, because he could not tell right from wrong, because he could not assertain the difference between fiction and reality. This is not the director's fault or the actor's fault, it's not Reagan's fault or the gun-manufacturer's fault, it's not society's fault and it's not the guy who printed the movie to film's fault - it's Hinkley's fault. It was his decision, his action, his violence. P.S.

Again you're missing what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying the music made anyone do anything. Read my posts again.

In your post you are removing blame from anyone, everyone - including Hinkley, citing a screw loose and not knowing right from wrong, thus diminishing responsiblility. Don't you see that sharing blame actually puts more back onto someone like Hinkley? "I am partially to blame, how much more then are you?" rather than, "I'm not to blame, he's not to blame, no-one is, he was insane." It is your line of thinking which has led to diminishing responsibility from everyone. It's like blame is something to be feared and avoided. Consequently, if it's all someone elses fault, and in someone elses hands, you can't do anything about it can you?

The alternative is apportioning responsibility appropriately rather than removing it from everyone. Taking ownership of a scenario and realising ways to change the situation. "I can make a difference".

Besides you are plainly wrong. Had the gun manufacturer(s) not made guns Hinkley would not have shot Regan. An impossibility without a gun as shooting is something one does with either a gun or a camera. I haven't seen taxi driver so I can't comment on whether Hinkley was acting out a scene or reacting to some dialogue of Jodies, but if so then yes, whoever assisted in planting the seed in his mind is also party to the act - even if misinterpreted - if they had not, it would not have happened. That is how you determine consequence/blame/responsibility. Would it have happened had such and such not occurred?

This does not mean the gun manufacter or Foster etc are liable, a big difference. Only Hinkley pulled the trigger.


Please man, try reading these posts with an open mind. Disagree by all means, but your responses are signalling a misinterpretation of what I'm saying.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 08-20-2001).]

[trux]

You're completely misreading my responses as well. There seems to be no end to this, so I'll make one. I'm misunderstanding you, and you're misunderstanding me, and that's that. This issue is too difficult to discuss like this, so I'm not going to anymore.

------------------
a bunch of long hairs.
trux