Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by SacredWarrior, Sep 5, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Why is it that whenever a horrible tragedy (like a mass shooting) happens, people always want to blame things like violent video games, movies, music, and even certain subcultures instead of saying the actual truth? It never fails to irritate me and it's part of the reason why I don't watch the news anymore. This video pretty much shows my opinion:

    What do you guys think of the scapegoating trend people like to do after huge tragedies?
    • Like Like x 1
  2. As irritating and as unfortunate as it is, I expect it to happen. As a friend once told me, the problem is usually because many people don't want to change their views, or perhaps broaden their minds a little and realize that if every generalization and stereotype were true, the world we are living in would be a very, very different place. Not a very nice one either.

    Every person is ultimately responsible for their own actions unless they are mentally unsound.
    #2 Greenie, Sep 5, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2016
    • Like Like x 5
    • Thank Thank x 1
  3. People will always find ways to support their own core beliefs. Even when presented facts that go against their core beliefs. They will do everything possible to keep their core beliefs intact. No matter how illogical it may be.

    True intelligence to me, is being able to look at your core beliefs. Then when being presented with different factual information, being able to modify those based on those facts.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Thank Thank x 1
  4. People, when faced with tragedy, want answers. It's a lot more comforting to have something they can fight back against when say a shooting or terrorist attack happens, and they look into the perpetrator's history and interests, and then they find out that they killed because of a video game or band or whatever that is just aggressive enough that in a skewed point of view, could have inspired the horrible deed.

    So they campaign against it, insist the person's hobbies are corrupting and evil, and it wouldn't have happened if someone banned it altogether. Of course, some politicians and/ or activists have some moral crusades and agendas of their own, where they have an easy bulletpoint for their career that they fought for a "good" cause, but blaming a video game or musician is largely a coping mechanism because for a lot of people, they want a valid reason something happened, something that could have changed. They justify getting something demonized because in their eyes, they just prevented another tragedy, they won.

    People just are not comfortable and accepting that shitty and troubled people do shitty and troubling things for complicated reasons that don't fit into a tidy box. It's like how people latch onto conspiracy theories, refusing to believe a handful of extremists had been living among them for long enough for them to commit an unspeakable act of evil, it must have been the government justifying two wars across the world that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, because oil or something? Or how after 9/11, a dangerous slope started happening where people see Muslims as an inately evil people where the good are the exception rather than the rule, conveniently ignoring the fact that we'd live in a horrifying world where there would be constant terror attacks or military invasions from over 1.6 billion people who want to exterminate us all.

    It honestly boils down to people rather react emotionally than logically to shit. We all do it, just some people double down when lives are on the line.
    • Love Love x 3
    • Useful Useful x 1
  5. Why do people scapegoat? Various reasons.

    #1: People like feeling as though they have the answers. Even when they don't. Why do you think there are so many political and religious fanatics? Absolute certainty brings with it a self-righteous illusion of control. When the world doesn't work the way it should, it's the fault of X, Y, or Z--no matter how absurd, so long as it doesn't contradict whatever a person's starting beliefs are, it's still more tenable to them than questioning themselves.

    #2: Because pernicious bastards like to manipulate fear and anger. Common anywhere there's money to be made, or power to be gained. All you have to do is divide people into camps and convince the ones in your ideological camp to attack and hate those of any other camp--ideologically radicalize them. Anything will do, really. Fucking Nintendo and Sega did it to each other with attack ads (Nintendon't anyone?) that created two fan groups which each obsessed over the superiority of their system and the inferiority of every other system. It still lives on in a certain sense with the PC Master Race crowd, or the Sony Fantards or Microtards.

    Thankfully, with game systems, it's just funny (and sad) to watch people zealously defend their own piece of overly expensive plastic. The same principle applies to politics though, schisming people into groups based on their values and getting them to attack anyone that is different. Blaming everything that's gone wrong on opponents. It's never done with evil intentions (on the surface anyway), it's almost always done with battle cries of "protect the X!" (Children, women, impoverished, whatever group garners the most sympathy) followed up with an absolute rejection of considering anything any other group may have to say. Typically by appealing to an absolute authority (ex: God, Allah, The Patriarchy, "The Natural Way of Things", et cetera) or by appealing to an absolute value (ex: Compassion, Love, Generocity, et cetera). It's almost always done by people who have something to gain by the status quo changing, or who at the very least benefit from saying that it should change.

    #3: Because humans are a tribal animal. We identify to a series of values, and to a certain extent, anyone who doesn't conform to those values is a various degree of "other." The greater the strength of the belief, the greater the feeling of otherness gets. The greater the strength of the belief, the easier it is for others to manipulate one way or another, because it makes someone less likely to ever question the source of that belief. It's easier to group people under other labels and judge everyone associated to that label rather than question ourselves.

    At the end of the day, it's rather simple.
    • Scapegoating is a tool used by people who need to feel as though there is an answer to all of their problems and uncertainties.
    • It's generally perpetuated at the top by people who will manipulate with fear and anger.
    • It's easiest to manipulate people who have a great and unwavering and unquestioned belief in something, as opposed to people who are willing to put aside their own feelings and beliefs to question themselves.
    It goes back to the basic characteristics of good people and bad people. (Even if "good" and "bad" are subjective, and it's laughable to categorize most people as purely good or purely bad, here's a general sense of what to aim for. This also helps with writing characters in fiction, so if you still role play, take a note of it.)

    Good people have a set of positive values or beliefs by which they live, and they hold themselves accountable to those beliefs and values. Whenever something goes wrong in their life or in the world, they don't blame others--they simply set about to fixing it, and if they were in any way related to it occurring, fixing themselves.

    Bad people have a set of positive values or beliefs by which they expect everyone else to conform to in order to achieve their utopian ideals. Whenever something goes wrong in their life or in the world, they blame other people, other societies, other groups, other concepts, et cetera. This is in no way bound to any one group--the battle cry varies. "Build the wall to keep the Mexicans out" one group says, while another says "teach all men not to rape." Anything to force society to a utopian ideal that is most probably impossible so long as individuality exists, but by which they can hold everyone else accountable for failing to achieve--and never themselves.

    Good people don't use scapegoats, because they have no need for them.

    Bad people use scapegoats, because they have no other way of justifying their position than to invent conspiracies against themselves and/or their values and/or their beliefs.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Love Love x 2
  6. Every time anything happens in the gaming community:
    "It's the Tumblr SJWs trying to censor us!"
    Also terms like feminazi, "feminist propaganda," etc

    This movement always seems to be a target ~.~

    I really don't feel like I have much more to add after Brovo's post, tbh
    • Like Like x 1
  7. It can go both ways you know
    • Love Love x 1
  8. It does go both ways. The marvelous thing about the Internet is it's filled with more information every hour than we could digest in a year--but most of that information is politically biased and/or pornography. You can find any article or website to reinforce your world views if you try. If I wanted feminist tangents about how everything is sexist and everything is racist I'd subscribe to If I wanted to be told that there's a massive left wing conspiracy out to destroy America I'd subscribe to Rebel Media.

    The truth is a three edged sword: Your truth, my truth, and the truth. Nobody ever has a complete idea of what is true. All I know is that the wisest, kindest, strongest, and most honest people I've ever met look at themselves before they look at anyone else. There are extremists in any movement if you look underneath the rocks--and earnestly good people in any movement if you look above the clouds too. Most movements start with some kernal of truth and move out from there.

    As for SJW's and the like specifically? It's probably because they're the loudest mad shouty fuckers nowadays--the darling of the media because they make a lot of drama and noise and thus, a lot of money. Pan the Internet back a decade and the people we would be talking about would be fundie Christians doing fucked up shit at Jesus Camp and trying to "fix" gay people. What was the threat against vidya games back in 2006? The spectre of Jack Thompson still loomed over the industry as news outlets left and right tried to prove that video games cause violence, just like how D&D will make your daughters into occult worshipers.

    For so long as humanity has lived, there have been scapegoats.

    You can't change that. You can't change other people, you can't force the people who blame everything on SJW's or who blame everything on video games or the Jews or whatever to change. You can only change yourself and be the best person that you can be, and teach others to do the same. Be skeptical, think for yourself, and be a good person. Question yourself. Always seek to improve. Always seek to listen to others who are different from you, because you have the most to learn from them--whether it's to accept or reject what they have to say.

    Be that which you wish the world to be, and the world will have one more bright light in it.
    • Love Love x 3
    • Bucket of Rainbows Bucket of Rainbows x 1
  9. I literally just saw people complaining about SJWs and political correctness shoving homosexuality and ethnicity down their throats on the new Mass Effect graphics demonstration video that came out today.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. This is the key. As much as we complain about scapegoating, generalizing and stereotyping, I feel that most people do indulge in it themselves. Myself included.

    Unless we look at ourselves first and correct the way we see and react to things, it's simply a case of the pot calling the kettle black. We don't have the right to expect others to change if we don't ourselves.
    • Love Love x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Nobody's perfect. Just do your best, that's all anyone can ever ask. :ferret:
    • Love Love x 1
    • Thank Thank x 1
  12. This, kinda.

    Say for example, a shooting blamed on a video game. Moreso, the shooter probably comes from a dysfunctional family or has a mental health issue. Both of these suggest there may be something unsafe underneath the surface of a family or individual we cannot see or perhaps even comprehend. How often do close relatives say about the shooter "I never expected this from them, they always seemed a reasonable person." Rhetoric question, it's most of the time. So if the idea of "It could be anyone." gets instilled into your mind, it's basically kicking against the foundation of understanding you think you have of family values and thought patterns of other people within your community. It becomes completely possible you don't know how your neighbours interact when they close the door. It becomes completely possible that this friend of yours is 'behind his fa├žade' thinking in patterns that are completely and utterly incomprehensible to you. This makes people uncomfortable because it is scary as fuck. Of course you'll want to run away from that thought.

    So the easy solution then becomes, blame something alien that you are detached from. If you have no attachment to video games or can easily detach from them, the familiar and strange don't mix to make you uncomfortable about every day life as video games aren't part of said life. You paint a clear target on something you genuinely do not care for, in order to give you ease of mind.

    It's happened to rock'n roll. It's happening to video games. It's going to happen to something else in the future. Either way, Elvis has left the building, and so will Super Mario, because each new generations becomes increasingly interwoven with digital media and video games. There just won't be enough people that feel detached from video games to even attempt to keep the status quo up.
    #12 Kestrel, Sep 9, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
    • Love Love x 1
  13. While a lot of people associating with certain movements have definitely tried to stir a lot of shit, you have to understand most people are engaging in more of a tribal us vs. them pattern than anything else. Take any war for example, people of nation A come to hate the opposing nation B as a whole, often even releasing their anger on the civilians who have not raised a single hand against them personally. Regardless, many of these same civilians from nation B feel the same animosity towards the people from nation A. It's not hate towards an individual, you see. It's hate towards a group, of which the actions are inflicted upon an individual affiliated with said group. This is also why a lot of warcrimes happen, because hate gives the illusion of absolute evil and absolute evil has not a shred of humanity.

    The exact same happens on the smaller scale. A lot of people in the gaming community demonise everyone remotely attached to (a modern interpretation of) the feminist movement. Vice versa, how often do you hear gamergate or MRA be thrown around as an insult? Grouping people into the category of either ally or enemy simplifies the thought process and makes it into something that can easily be validated by others, making you feel like you belong in a group and gives you a sense of purpose. No matter how much there is to discuss within an argument or if there's any merit to what either side stands for, this piece of human nature is something we'll always be dealing with. Because the urge to belong and have purpose is often stronger than the need for truth.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. It is probably in our nature to try to determine the cause for such tragedies. Not everything can be traced to a simple cause though, sometimes it is more than one, or really nothing such as a simple accident.
    • Like Like x 1

  15. The question is, who determines what constitutes mental "unsoundness"...? A rabid anti-gun person would call a "gun nut" (really, any gun owner) mentally unsound. Democrats already call Republicans mentally unsound. Personally, I've never agreed with the idea that a certain "class" of people can be excused from their responsibility simply because they have been deemed "mentally unsound". Especially if this "unsoundness" is referred to as "temporary". If you do the deed, it doesn't matter what your state of mind is/was. You are responsible for your actions, always.
  16. Well I was just trying to sound politically correct. What I am referring to is someone who is not at all able to think for themselves, someone with a mental medical condition, for example Alzheimer's disease. A person for whom a 'keeper' is necessary at all times.
  17. Just two things. (For defining mental unsoundness.)

    A. There is something perceptibly mentally wrong with you. Not something minor like ADHD or OCD, or other disorders which could be managed through healthy coping mechanisms, medication, therapy, et cetera. I'm talking someone so far gone that they think it's acceptable to shoot up a school to get some fame, or burn people's houses down just to feel the heat from the flames.

    B. Fanatics. Not the passionate--if you really care about and devote a lot of time to, say, guns, or Jesus, or whatever, that's none of my business to tell you whether that's right or wrong. (It's wrong for others to tell you whether it's right or wrong either--cuz' freedom n' what not.) I generally define fanatics as people who polarize themselves so strongly with a particular issue that they become incapable of tolerating others, they dehumanize them on an individual level. The most extreme fanatics go out and murder people over it. There's usually some sense of self-righteous purity about it too--"all those people who don't share my X are impure savages who don't deserve their rights/their life."

    As for others (especially on the political stage or in online blogs) accusing each other constantly of being mentally unsound? It's a generic accusation at this point. Like racism, or sexism, or fascism. These things used to have a lot more gravitas until people flung them at the most petty things so often, that they became more like jokes than serious issues.

    Politicians like breeding fanatics. It means they get unquestioning permanent votes that try to bully others into voting their way as well. :ferret:
    • Love Love x 1
    • Thank Thank x 1

  18. Ahhh... you have just revealed the "secret" of who determines mental unsoundness. Let's look at it this way: A psychopath is "mentally unsound", but knows full well what they're doing. A person with Down's Syndrome could be considered "mentally unsound" by your definition, in that they usually require a "keeper". SOMEONE WHO TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM. If a person isn't able to think for themselves, then how can they plan their criminal activity? How can they even commit a single crime? More importantly, without help? All I know is, from my own knowledge base, there is this: Ignorantia juris non excusat ... and yet, a psychopath can be held responsible, while someone with Down's Syndrome would not.

    A. But that's just it... "so far gone" is that slippery slope. Humanity is humanity. We only hold ourselves together because we have established certain moral codes by which to live. And have decided to enforce those codes. Only that seems to be breaking down. "True Humanity", rising to the surface. All the seven Deadly Sins come to haunt us. In all the recent school shootings, from what I'm aware, those who have committed said acts have been on "mood-altering" psychotropic drugs. Drugs meant to keep them from being "so far gone". Meaning, they chose to act out whatever motivated their thoughts. A person can think all they want about how much they'd like to see another person dead, but it's the choice to act on that thought that counts. Mental unsoundness is more often used as an excuse, so other things can be blamed... inanimate objects, or society/culture, held responsible in that person's place. As a scapegoat. Look at the concept of "gun violence". Guns are not violent. They are inanimate objects. Humans are violent, but "political correctness" demands we blame the blameless. And excuse the guilty.

    B. Yes, they do. But are they really mentally unsound? Are they not simply doing what humans do when they have no common morality, no social/cultural inhibitions towards murder? In other words, things are not so simple. Because one person's definition of "mentally unsound" is another person's definition of normalcy. Again, who gets to judge?
  19. Ehh... ^_^' I don't usually think so deep into what I write so, it's all just on face value... yeah. Not sure what to say, @Roose Hurro .

  20. What you've said works fine. Very good to know.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.