I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, USR? Quite obviously, there are very vulnerable people in our society (not just children) who need protecting from unscrupulous clever people, who know how to exploit the vulnerable as a resource, knowing full well it that will get them into a lot of trouble. Young fatherless males of low IQ, who are very poorly socialised, lacking the support of an extended family, socially isolated, lacking in normal developmental life experiences, suffering from either a lack of parental control, or excessive parental control, bullied and tormented at school, torn between cultures with opposing values, possessing serious or borderline personality disorders, sometimes physically, emotionally, or sexually abused, and who's only window to the world is a TV set, are quite obviously very vulnerable people who can be manipulated by the people who control what they see and hear.USR wrote
Let us get things perfectly straight. People are not "very vulnerable" that they are imitating on screen violence and criminal behaviour. They are using on screen violence and criminality depicted in the media to try and cover their arses whenever they get caught out.
Lost and alone in a seemingly hostile world, they become either angry and aggressive or socially withdrawn. These kids are unable to develop an internal regulator, which moderates their immature, self destructive, and selfish behaviour. Troubled children like these with bold, aggressive dispositions, usually exhibit behavioural problems at an early age. They perform poorly academically, and engage in disruptive, attention seeking behaviour at school. They are hostile and violent to other kids who soon learn to shun them out of fear. This further increases their social isolation. They all seem to develop a heightened sense of personnel injustice, and can recite numerous instances when teachers or authority figures have treated them unfairly. When they find themselves in anxious social situations, they can think of only one response, to lash out violently. As they grow older, they gravitate to other like minded kids and begin to form violent gangs. It is these kids who are statistically much more likely to develop fully developed criminal personalities.
For those troubled kids who's underlying personality predisposes them towards shyness instead of boldness, different personality problems are exhibited. For a host of reasons, these kids have not developed any socialisation skills that most kids learn during the crucial 3 to 13 year age group. Socially awkward, fearful, anxious and withdrawn, they are unable to form close personal relationships with their peers, or, for that matter, almost anyone else. Some of these kids can excel academically and gain prestige and acceptance through hard scholastic work. Many more may find contentment and friendship, in artistic pursuits or in creative hobbies. Others in individualistic sports like athletics, hunting, or fishing.
But for a myriad of reasons, some do not develop any means of socially interacting with other people at all, and are unable to enhance their own self respect through group approval. This condition is exacerbated with the onset of their teenage years when they are viewed as loners and a bit weird. Socially isolated, they are unable to develop fully into adults and retreat into their shells, usually inhabiting a world of fantasy. Few of them are capable of attaining any degree of independence, and it is common for many of them to live with a parent or other family members long into adulthood.
As they grow older, they begin to develop the deep psychological drive that we all have, to be part of a group. But because of their social awkwardness, they find themselves relegated to the very bottom of their own societies social pecking order. For the loneliest and most socially awkward, some may gravitate to violent or pseudo violent gangs. Here they can be positively evaluated by like minded peers in a social setting where personnel standards are not very high. These are the "easily lead", who often only make up an appreciative audience for their bolder peers, when they act out their cultivated roles of toughness and meanness. Those that can not even attain this level of socialisation, are shunned like an untouchable caste and conspicuously avoided by their own peers.
They seeth with resentment, and some of them direct their own contempt at young women, who to them are highly desirable but completely unobtainable. This resentment and hostility is reinforced by the music they listen to. Others vent their hostility at minority groups who have an even lower social standing than they have. Many are drawn towards extremist racial groups. It is from these young men that the ranks of mass murderers, celebrity assassins, or school shooters, will most often be found. Interviews with neighbours who have known young men who have gone on killing sprees, have a depressing similarity. "He was a loner", He kept to himself", "He didn't seem to have any friends".
It is these emotionally immature young people, bold or shy, who are most at risk from the seductive images of Hollywood, which provides them with totally inappropriate role models. These models inspire a fascination for personalities who are successful and respected by the public, both for their outrageous behaviour and for their ability to inflict appalling violence upon their enemies. These strong, competent, and decisive role models, have become for them, the male father figure that they never had, or the substitute for the father that they despise, or the strong male that they wish they were.
This Hollywood culture teaches them that Real Men, (and increasingly Real Women), react to threats to their self esteem by striking aggressive poses and with ruthless violence. Even among well socialised young people who are constantly exposed to this culture, the idea can develop that society has an expectation, that even respectable, responsible people should react violently in many situations.
It is worthy of note, that young people today are increasingly reacting to comparatively innocuous confrontations with totally inappropriate violent behaviour. The ever increasing incidence of road rage, pool rage, sport rage, school bullying, and the increasing instances of domestic violence, are a logical manifestations of this problem.
You seem to be implying that people should not blame other factors for their own behaviour? That can be valid. But it can also be invalid. That logic would work a treat if every person was raised exactly the same way with two good parents, had exactly the same IQ, and had the same successful economic backgrounds. But courts routinely do take into consideration an offenders background when deciding for leniency or punishment, because some unfortunate people had absolutely ghastly childhoods. Serial killer Charles Manson was the illegitimate son of a prostitute, who as a young boy, would be left by his mother on bar stools while she serviced customers. What pro social skills do you think that he ever developed?USR wrote
Christians like to cover their arses about why people are turning away from the church. They love to blame societal changes for why people do not want to believe in a benevolent zombie monster. But, they do not want to take responsibility for the fact that society does not like the suppressive nature of superstition.
Most people are not dumbasses, USR. But too many poorly socialised and low IQ people are, and they are the problem. The media tells those dumbarses that belonging to a violent youth gang is cool It tells them that a real cool guy like them calls females "hoes". It tells the dumbarses that they should treat females violently. It tells the dumbarses that women find violent men attractive. Then the media tells those dumbarses that illegal drug abuse is normal behaviour. It tells the dumbarses that irresponsible and dangerous behaviour is fun. Then, it tells the dumbarses that criminals have lots of money, the most fashionable clothes, the nicest cars, and the sexiest girlfriends. And when they do all of that, USR, you can hardly complain when the dumbarses start aspiring to live up to the glamourous life the media is presenting to them, in every movie they watch. Especially, when that message is reinforced by the rap "music" they listen to, and the computer games they play. Then the dumbarses might do something stupid that hurts you or your family members.USR wrote
People are not dumbarses.
Once again, you are going back to your original and bizarre explanation that the media helps keep violent crime down by keeping offenders off the streets placidly watching violent movies, where they learn how awful it is to be a victim. But violent crime keeps rising USR, not falling. Kids are killing kids. Such crimes were once extremely rare. Today it is becoming commonplace. How does your theory work with that? Are there less movies around today to keep these suddenly unexplainably dangerous kids off the streets?USR wrote
The amount of people that scoff at nonsensical depictions of antisocial behaviour only helps my argument. The entertainment industry reinforces people's motivation by seeing what is depicted on screen. People act either consciously or subconsciously to counteract what they find objectionable.
The NRA definitely have a point. The easy availability of firearms COMBINED WITH a culture glamourising gun violence, criminal behaviour, and drug abuse, COMBINED WITH increasingly poorly socialised children from single parent households, is beginning to tear apart the social cohesion of western society, which is the glue that keeps all communities together.USR wrote
The NRA love to blame the entertainment media for gun violence.
My opinion is that the NRA are on the right track. But that they need to realise that if they just keep insisting that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to gun ownership, (so there!) they will eventually lose. Constitutions can be changed by ballot. More than half of the people in the USA are women, and women traditionally take a dim view of weapons, which often enough men use against them.USR wrote
But their double think disallows them from seeing that if they try and embellish the problems alleged of the entertainment industry, the issue with gun violence has come to a point where the NRA are figuratively "shooting themselves in the foot" further discouraging people joining their organisation and furthering encouraging restrictions on firearms and bringing in new gun laws.
I think that the NRA would be well advised to agree to some sort of sensible gun control, or like the Christian right in Australia who once demanded strict censorship of the entertainment industries, the pressure on the pendulum will keep increasing until it has to swings the other way. An when it does, it will swing a lot more the other way than if the NRA had given some ground, and kept the pressure on the pendulum lower.
qualifies for the longest post in PA history. Would I be correct Aussie and Mods?