When you take the "desensitize" argument to its logical and extreme conclusion, you get this. The pointlessly small, monochromatic, and fuzzy screenshot above comes from the Lowell Sun's report on a 19-year-old girl's animal cruelty protest over the game Call of Duty: World at War. Because you shoot attack dogs in the game, clearly she should "fear young kids playing these games and thinking it's all right to do this -- because they do it in a video game." In my experience, kids love dogs more than they love people. And, the dogs in the game will literally rip your throat out if you don't shoot them first. And, dogs are varied enough that we can tell between attack dogs and the 19-year-olds Pomeranians (apparently named Winnie the Pooh and Fluffy, no joke). But, kids are killing dogs in the game, so they'll just feel so compelled to get a gun and shoot the nearest dog that they start itching for it, literally unable to sleep at night without shooting innocent dogs.
This is almost a parody of the "violence desensitization" argument. No, young and impressionable kids aren't going to shoot dogs because they had to in Call of Duty. It's not even an "object of the game" as the 19-year-old says, but rather, as Kotaku says, part of the overall goal of staying alive for as long as you can. So, will kids think they have to shoot every dog they see to stay alive? No, because there are also friendly dogs in the game that tear the Nazis' (or Japanese/Americans') throats out (and kids aren't ridiculously stupid sub-human beings. At least not all the time.)
No comments:
Post a Comment