Tuesday, September 24, 2013

A direct response to Dr. Michael M. Brown Regarding the case against violent video games

  Alas, I am about to do something I thought I would never do in a public blog such as this, which is to call out someone specifically, by name, as the vitriolic cult leader they are. This is a direct response to Dr. Brown's article regarding the release and success of Grand Theft Auto 5  (link here). Indeed in his article, Brown -who is an advocate of religious rights and a strong opponent of everybody else who disagrees with his chosen type of insanity- blames the rise of violence in western culture to be in part because of the increased violence seen in the media, and specifically the interactive form of video games.

  First I would like to mention that the article is merely its author's opinion based on a review made by another conservative journalist. Brown writes his opinion as fact when there is little data to support his analysis, quite the contrary as pointed out by one of the comments, which, if there were a correlation between violence in video games and violence in society, it is a negative one, as violence has decreased over time, in our society, whereas the amount of violent media (especially video games) has increased significantly. But more importantly, the original reviewer fails to mention that the parts reviewed in the article are merely a flashback, and doesn't mention how the game is designed to allow players to make ethical choices, to return stolen items, to attempt to reconcile a married couple, to bond as father and son... No, the reviewer focused on the negative; yes, it is a game where you play as not one, but three criminals, and the story mode (the only playable mode available until multiplayer becomes available) takes you through a narrative of how the main protagonists evolve as human beings, but if anything, it is a virtual ethnography of criminals in the west.

   Brown, of course, uses a rhetoric which detaches him from all responsibilities about what is done based on his words, and, just like a good cult leader, obviously attacks the few in the opposing factions, those mentally ill people who cannot differentiate between fiction and reality, and act, unrestricted, upon their own view of the world, without even mentioning the attacks made by those who follow the same doctrine he teaches, the liberties being suppressed by the religious right, and the blatant ignorance of the acts of terror committed by anybody but atheists (few as there may be) and muslim extremists (who are condemned by the islamic leadership). Indeed, Brown also fails to mention his own militaristic rhetoric about taking the government back, where any loon can be touched by his words and mistake their meaning with taking back the government by force. At this rate, sir, I would strongly suggest you start using a more candy coated vocabulary, less riddled with violence, or pseudo violence.

   Lastly, I would also like to point out what Brown and his mindless followers are trying to bring: a roll back to the 17th century, in culture at least, when the Church was in power and was free to exterminate the opposition unpunished. That is what religion does to people and that is what we must fight. There was a time when people were burnt at the stake for not believing in the Christian myth, or even questioning the doctrine of the Church. Indeed, were that to happen, the comic/movie "V: For Vendetta" would not be far from becoming a documentary of how freedom would be taken back and religion would fall.