1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Police commissioner calls for Adults Only game rating

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 24 Mar 2015.

  1. VipersGratitude

    VipersGratitude Multimodder

    Joined:
    4 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    3,535
    Likes Received:
    837
    Ratings should be scrapped. I grew up in the 80's with zero parental supervision. As a child I saw an innocent by-stander used as a human shield on an escalator. I saw immortals decapitate each other. I saw a man melting from toxic waste explode over a car bonnet. I saw a woman get raped by a tree. I saw Bobby fly...and yet I turned out to be a pacifist (for the most part; I will defend myself). So where is the correlation exactly?

    Personally, I think as a culture we've all become prissy little self-righteous prudes since then. I mean, would you let your kids watch a movie that begins with a suicide scene and an assault on a police officer, followed by arson, children swearing, references marijuana, cocaine, heroin, speed, sexual torture devices, and tops it all off with a dick joke? Thought not, but I just described the first 15 mins of The Goonies.
     
  2. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Fan Fan

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    6,398
    Likes Received:
    887
    I think that the correlation is made on the general scale, not on a case-by-case basis. In the same way, when children have committed violent murders, their actions are usually pinned on the games that they played or the movies they watched, but there's ultimately something else that has influenced their behaviour, and it's a lot more complicated than one single influence (nurturing, discipline, stability, fulfillment, self-esteem etc).

    But that's not to say that the ratings system has no value; as Spreadie pointed out, it prevents minors from procuring potentially harmful material, and by "harmful" I don't mean that it's going to instantaneously convert every innocent child into a mass-murdering maniac; the material might harm the child in other ways, internally. And I don't think that's being self-righteous or prudish... I'm sure we're all happy to acknowledge that there is a limit somewhere, and the ratings system at least gives us a structure that we can work with.

    I remember when I was a kid in the 80s I had a mate whose bedroom shelf was lined with 18-rated videos which his parents had bought for him. He wasn't even 10 years old at the time. Fact is, some parents just don't give a sh!t, so changing the ratings system will not make any difference... again I find myself agreeing with Spreadie in that this is just a show.

    LOOK AT ME EVERYBODY - I'M DOING SOMETHING FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY!
     
  3. VipersGratitude

    VipersGratitude Multimodder

    Joined:
    4 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    3,535
    Likes Received:
    837
    Oh I think it's pretty self-righteous to advocate a censorship system when you can't even articulate the claimed harm in prevents.

    We are squeamish around violence because our mirror neurons fire. This is what we're trying to protect kids from, because as a society we're perfectly fine with cartoon violence that shows no consequences but if anything shows like the A-team are what is harmful to the cognitive development of kids by presenting unrealistic ramifications of violence. And by harm I don't mean some amorphous, undefined perturbation; I mean simply "Oh I had no idea that drop-kicking my friend to the face was going to break his neck, because it was never shown as a potential outcome on WWE"
     
  4. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Fan Fan

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    6,398
    Likes Received:
    887
    It's not that I can't articulate what that harm is; I just didn't think it necessary to state the obvious (or at least not until you replied). A very long time ago I watched Nightmare on Elm Street with friends. The following day their dad properly roasted me because they were up all night, screaming in terror because they thought Freddy was coming for them. Harmless fun, right? :rolleyes:

    I'm not quite sure specifically what correlation you are looking for, but it's a no-brainer that certain types of material are potentially harmful to minors. Just because they might eventually get over it doesn't mean harm was never done.

    And just to be clear, I didn't ever say that censorship prevents harm... I said that the ratings system prevents minors from getting hold of material that may be harmful.
     
  5. VipersGratitude

    VipersGratitude Multimodder

    Joined:
    4 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    3,535
    Likes Received:
    837
    The attraction to watch horror movies is to experience eustress. The aftermath you're describing is called hyperactive agency detection and it's not caused by media, but is an evolved extant property that all humans possess. My point is that adults simply manage these pre-existing psychological biases better, and they are capable of this only through exposure and experience. Monsters under the bed have existed for as long as there have been beds, not just media representations of them.
     
  6. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    How have these monsters gone unnoticed for so long, it's unacceptable that people are allowed to sell these beds with monsters included and we need to pass a law to stop them doing so.

    It's not right that parents have to comfort a crying child in the middle of the night and explain to them about these monsters, these beds are dangerous things and should come with a health warning. :lol:
     
  7. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Fan Fan

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    6,398
    Likes Received:
    887
    I LOVE horror movies, and I know full well that there's an attraction to them, but that's not my point... I'm talking generally about adult rated movies (or media, to be fair) that feature excessive and explicit violence, gore, profanity, sex etc. Furthermore, this isn't about agent detection; it's about trauma caused specifically by watching an adult movie that results in vivid and disturbing nightmares. Are you really trying to tell me that the media didn't have a part to play in the kids' disturbed sleep?! Oh my. :wallbash:

    FWIW, arguing in favour of "exposure and experience" isn't enough - you have to state when would be suitable for such exposure and experience to take place, and that's precisely what the ratings system attempts to do. Of course adults manage certain stresses better than kids... that's partly why the ratings system exists. LOL.
     
  8. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    I thought the ratings system acted as a guide for parents, as in some parents may believe there child is mature enough to handle the thorny topics of sex and violence and have time to discuss such subjects with their children, and others may not.
     
  9. ZeDestructor

    ZeDestructor Minimodder

    Joined:
    24 Feb 2010
    Posts:
    226
    Likes Received:
    4
    Precisely. Which is why not allowing sales (enforcing the rating, as it were) to kids is perfectly acceptable (IMO): it forces parents to consider the impact the media they are purchasing for their kid, but outright banning parents from allowing their kids to experience such media is not (again, IMO).

    Banning ratings also counter-productive: now you no longer have a neat, <10 words synopsis of what potentially offensive content is on the media itself to make a quick choice there and then. At the same time, kids are also amazingly resilient and well-adjusted with the right guidance (which is why my parents were more than happy to let me have fun with Doom back in the day).
     
  10. VipersGratitude

    VipersGratitude Multimodder

    Joined:
    4 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    3,535
    Likes Received:
    837
    Then I recommend The Babadook, the first horror movie of substance in years, and thematically relevant to this discussion.

    No doubt that it had an influence, but considering that most kids experience nightmares whether they've watched a horror movie or not, then the more likely culprit is simply children's imagination. While Freddy may have been the catalysing stimuli, he wasn't the root cause. The catalyst could be anything.

    The thing that kept me up at night when I was a kid wasn't horror movies, but the lingering potential threat of thermonuclear war. WarGames is rated PG incidentally...

    I thought I did....whenever. I experienced actual childhood trauma, and yet I used to watch horror movies constantly. So, if I was experiencing anxiety in real life, why would I go to horror movies for more? The answer is they are a great stress-management training, which is essential for adult life and was even more essential for a kid who has to grow up quickly.

    EDIT: Chanced upon a related story while dropping the kids off at the pool - http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/29/schools-parents-police-children-18-rated-games
     
    Last edited: 29 Mar 2015
  11. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,284
    Likes Received:
    183
    I don't see how one sleepless night is considered traumatic. Or at the very least something that has any sort of lasting effect beyond that night.
     
  12. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Fan Fan

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    6,398
    Likes Received:
    887
    It's semantics - trauma is typically understood to mean "extreme" harm, but that's not technically correct; any harm, big or small, is trauma. A tiny scratch on the surface of your eye is attributed to trauma, but people don't go around shouting "Trauma!" when they scratch themselves, because semantics. I was just making a point that psychological harm is a real thing and is often a result of exposure to certain kinds of material. The duration of the trauma is irrelevant (for the sake of argument, at least); what matters is that harm is done, and that's why some people choose censorship. Which begs the question: where do we draw the line?

    Yeah I watched it recently - definitely a movie of substance, and the explanations are fascinating. Amazing acting too.

    I think the matter of children experiencing nightmares (being just one example of harm) is that it is something that can be regulated and controlled in the sense that the stimulus can be controlled (to an extent). Nobody expects to completely eradicate nightmares by preventing their children from watching adult movies; they just want to spare the child unnecessary harm, which I think is perfectly reasonable.

    Importantly, there are two extremes to the spectrum of regulation - no control, and tyranny, but there is also a happy medium which (thankfully) most parents adopt. For example, I watched Die Hard when I was 11 or so... what an amazing experience that was; but I generally wasn't allowed to watch or own 18 rated movies as I saw fit.

    Re. the Guardian article, I can understand the concern, but it's up to the parents what their kids play and people shouldn't interfere. When my kids are in primary school they sure as hell will not be playing GTA.

    It seems that the subject of this thread has departed significantly from the OP and has become more of a discussion about censorship in general, which could get messy.
     
  13. VipersGratitude

    VipersGratitude Multimodder

    Joined:
    4 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    3,535
    Likes Received:
    837
    And therein lies our difference of opinion. You say it's unnecessary and I say it's necessary.

    Media is an ideal way to prepare children. Yes, they might have nightmares, but they're going to have nightmares anyway...so at least they can learn some essential life skills such as stress regulation and that their choices have consequences. However, ultimately they're not in any real danger.

    Bambi is rated U, yet contains arguably the most nightmare-inducing scene for children in film history as they learn about their parent's mortality and the finality of death. It's a necessary lesson, with easily-seen parallels to real life. Nightmare on Elm Street on the other hand has no real bearing on real life, but does provide valuable meta-skills.

    We have drifted a little, but the video game classification debate is simply an extension of the old video nasties argument of the 80's that media corrupts children...but what video games are we going to talk about from our childhoods? Barbarian? Carmageddon? Doom? All were called video game nasties, but in retrospect we can see just how harmless they were.
     
  14. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    I think that's where you need to focus your debate. "Unnecessary harm" suggest that there is such a thing as necessary harm. Is there? Or is there just harm?

    So, can you protect a child from harm? But in life, harm is unavoidable. So what's the best alternative? We want to limit its exposure to harm as much as possible, while at the same time teaching it how to avoid and cope with harm as it grows up into independent adulthood. But in order to avoid harm, it has to recognise it. In order to cope with it, it has to experience it. It has to be exposed to the inevitable harm --but in a gradual way, without getting overwhelmed. It's a tricky balancing act, parenting is.
     
    Last edited: 30 Mar 2015
  15. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    Well teachers seem to think parents allowing children to play 18 rated games are a case of neglect. :rolleyes:

    Heads' threat to parents over computer games
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32103991
     
  16. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    Good luck with that one. The response of an already overwhelmed Child Social Services tends to be: "And what do you want us to do about that?".
     
  17. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    Well if Cameron's plans come to fruition they could face 5 years in jail if they did.
     
  18. VipersGratitude

    VipersGratitude Multimodder

    Joined:
    4 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    3,535
    Likes Received:
    837
    One thought I had when reading the story yesterday was - How many parents, with a threat of jail time hanging over their heads, are going to beat their children for playing video games that "harm" them?
     
  19. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    Simply never going to happen.
     
  20. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Fan Fan

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    6,398
    Likes Received:
    887
    Not quite - I agree with you (and Nexxo) that kids absolutely must have a level of exposure to the ills of the world; I just think that the extremes mentioned in this thread aren't really relevant to the matter of important life lessons. Is it necessary for 10-year old kids to play the current GTA titles, arguably the most violent games around? Not at all; kids can learn about the same sort of crime and violence without that level of exposure.

    As Nexxo says, it is a balancing act, which I alluded to in my last post: where do we draw the line between what we let our kids watch/play and what we protect them from? The answer to that is entirely subjective, and I'm pretty happy drawing the line for my kids rather than have them draw it for themselves (as I'm sure is the case with most parents).

    I know that you mentioned a lot of simulated violence and gore, but let's be realistic - a lot of the stuff that people watch nowadays is real, and it's scary stuff (not in the horror sense). I don't spend my morning coffee break on gore.com because, frankly, I think it would f*** me up; but I'll gladly watch make-believe violence till the cows come home. Weird, huh? No matter what people argue, simulated violence will never be the same as real violence, nor simulated death the same as real death. It's always tame by comparison, even if it's realistic, like in the Walking Dead. I watched some sh!t (and I'm not talking about 2girls1cup) a very long time ago, about 10 years or so, and it's stuck in my head as clear as day - some dude being nailed by a swat team. That stuff is harrowing and it stays with you.

    Do you have an opinion on real vs. simulated violence/gore/sex, or is it all the same to you, and all part of our development?

    More to say but I need to go watch Gotham. :rock:
     

Share This Page