I understand they want closure and to prevent this from happening again, but suing a video game publisher bcz of depictions of guns is a bit of a reach.
There’s research to back this up, video games do not cause violence.
They just want closure and for something to blame without actually tackling the real problem, gun control, which will never happen because ‘murica. They’d never get anywhere if they tried.
They voted all the leadership positions for the Uvalde police back in, so voters collectively approved of their actions.
The research is not nearly comprehensive enough to say that a massively popular game franchise does not have a social and political effect on how people view firearms. That’s a massive leap from “gamer kids don’t get into fights at recess more than non-gamers.”
I agree purely on a “cultural influence” level, as while I doubt CoD caused a school shooting, it seems the argument these grieving families are making is “CoD glorifies guns and gun culture, therefore this will send a message that gun culture is not acceptable and guns being admired is dangerous.” On that I feel that if they have to destroy an over monetized and creatively bankrupt game franchise to send a message that guns are not toys or fashion accessories, CoD’s continuation will not be missed by the majority of gamers.
My only concern is that if they do succeed, that means anything can be censored in the US if it promotes cult-like behavior, which is too subjective to be properly defined without giving politicians another way to FUD people and thus does not solve the problem.
That, and fuck those cops who caused the majority of the issue. At that point, grab kitchen knives, conceal them, go to a local police station, calmly say you want to report a crime, and when the cop comes out to ask, slit his throat and say “this is for the kids you killed”. I would not trust an American cop ever at this point, so if anyone from my own or any other country reads this, I’m not going to kill a cop because the RCMP are actually trustworthy and have ensured everyone’s safety. I’m not intending to incite actual violence, only stating that these families are targeting the wrong people and they’re probably doing it because they were told justice will never come because the fucking police wanted it that way.
Uvalde was a tragedy but this has absolutely no merit
I find it sad that some lawyer sold them on this suit, while also settling with the police department for peanuts.
The police caused all of the extra pain here, and no studies have ever shown a link to violence from video games.
Sorry, wrong target. Sue the cops who didn’t act. Oh, wait. They’re basically untouchable. Well, I guess sue yourselves for having children in America. That’s about the only case you might win.
「Points to US Army.」
COD has had creepy right wing ideology sewn into it at least as far back as Ghosts (which also featured – I hear – amazing dog levels) but yes, even recent one had messages more about _are you willing to make the tough choices [and commit atrocities] in the name of national security. That’s pretty right-wing.
But that doesnt qualify as incitement to action (at least not in US law) because it isn’t specific (e.g. Justice Thomas must be killed before he does any further damage to our civil rights )
Freedom of speech allows us to paint groups as bad guys in art, and it’s up to our critics and curators to highlight these and other problematic features.
CoD is propaganda for the MIC and US imperialism, not gun companies.
Talk about misdirected anger…
deleted by creator
Disclosure: I don’t play CoD anymore (I also think the series is overrated) and would like to see Activision/Blizzard burn.
You are, unfortunately, partially misperceiving and/or mischaracterizing the game and genre. Most are not murder simulators. Some certainly are (ex. Hitman and the skippable single player bits of one of the CoD games is) but those are the minority - the plots are generally revolving around military conflicts (whether military conflicts are by definition murder or not is another thing altogether though I would personally say that they are in the same ethical place) and the multiplayer is basically technological sports. Since the early-2000s at least, they have been propaganda supporting imperialism and normalizing military conflict, though GenZ seems to have wised up on that.
For the “real world guns” thing, they aren’t anymore with limited exceptions where a firearms company explicitly partners with them.
Additionally, the correlation between individuals playing violent video games and taking part on violence just does not exist in any research that has been conducted. Violent video games, in fact, allow people to work out aggression and frustration in healthy, non-destructive ways. Your anger is pointed in the wrong direction. If you want to target something that will have an actual impact, dedicate some energy to pushing fixes for wealth inequality and poverty. Yes, that’s harder to pin down but most things worth doing aren’t easy.
Jack Thompson has entered the chat?
In a civilized society, the cure for radicalizing speech is more speech, particularly discourse. Besides which we already have plenty of evidence that violent video games don’t radicalize. (Though, to be fair, terrorist operatives find pre-radicalized people and point them towards targets via social engineering.)
Someone who is already dangerous may play violent video games to help cope. But withholding them doesn’t address the problem, just as withholding porn doesn’t make people less sexually frustrated.
Then there’s the matter that drone operators recognize and feel the effects of having killed, and get PTSD and burnout in ways that video game players killing shadows do not. The high turnover and mentalmhealth crisis of drone operators demonstrates to us simulations don’t cross that critical line.
COD is modeled (more or less) on war settings, but so are the Tom Clancy games, So is Six Days in Fallujah and Spec Ops: The Line which are distinctly anti war. And as Penn and Teller brutally demonstrated, there is a huge visceral and emotional difference between shooting guns in games, and engaging with the real thing.
We know how to address amuck killers. We know reducing rampage killers is not just in addressing gun culture, but also addressing precarity. But neither of are political parties is willing to take that step. One is, indeed, banking on War Boys voting them into power, sight unseen, but then signing up as brownshirt goons by the legion.
Turning your ire on video games is quaint and misguided and plays right into their hands.
it’s interesting how they got to this target as conclusion.
for places that don’t ban guns, every walmart would have them with minimal barriers for buying.
like what steam does for games, maybe it’s because these guns are that easy to acquire to begin with?
I’m not so sure Walmart sells guns any more. They don’t in my area and I live in a very gun friendly area. They just seem to sell air rifles and hunting accessories.
They don’t sell them online, but they do still sell them in stores. They only stopped selling some guns and some types of ammo.
From the horse’s mouth:
Or parents could parent 😅🤔.
Ah yes, because being a good parent and making sure your kid goes to school would’ve certainly prevented them from getting shot at the elementary school 😅🤔.
How do you propose they parent other people’s kids?
This right here. Lack of parenting is the issue . And children in school these days , their mental health is ignored and we let kids graduate despite not meeting requirements. No wonder we have such an issue with disrespect, mental health, and intelligence. We are failing a generation and its now starting to catch up
The fact that CoD doesn’t even use real guns/manufacturers anymore makes me think this suit has zero chance. Video games do not cause violence, certainly not more than any other media!
Yeah, without evidence that Activision/CoD were intentionally in cahoots with arms manufacturers, this is pretty flimsy.
I do think the case against Daniel Defense is stronger, though. I can see a legitimate argument being made that guns should not be advertised directly at teenagers and young men, and that firearms shouldn’t be advertised on social media in general.
