Morons of the Internet: The Daily Mail (19/04/15)

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we have a double feature as not only do we have some of the worst and biased reporting in existence, but also an idiotic school whose misguided view is both ignorant and unnecessary on a subject that happens to be personal to myself.
______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3016596/Head-teachers-report-parents-police-social-services-let-children-play-Grand-Theft-Auto-Call-duty.html
______________________________________________________________________________

Now let's just clear up this argument once and for all. There is no causative evidence to suggest that video games increase sexualised behaviour and condone violence. That is a statistical fact that can be backed up by any reliable study taken. Obviously this governing body realised this and so decided to instead ban video games because of so called 'neglectful' parenting. Now the dictionary definition of 'neglectful' is "not giving proper care or attention to someone or something". How can that possibly apply to the idea of buying children video games? The violent games in question are rated at eighteen years and older, which means by law it would be illegal for the child to purchase the game. Surely if the parent has to buy the game for the child it cannot possibly be described as neglectful, and in fact is actually the reverse, as the child is being given attention. It's funny that nowhere can I find this 'neglectful' behaviour on the NSPCC website, which would be a pretty good indication that this theory is totally misguided. This obvious bullshit is proof that the board in question have no valid argument for controlling the ownership of video games, and so they're just making up excuses to try and defend their idiocy.

However they're not the only people to not have a grasp on the real world in this article. 'The Daily Mail' is also part of this idiocy with one of the most biased and misleading articles I've ever had the displeasure of reading. What the article has made clear is that they want to cut down on the amount of violent video games, but also to crack down on social media usage as well, which is another point I would disagree with the board on as well. The thing is that nowhere in the title does it suggest that this ban would also effect social media. This says to me that the paper doesn't want to highlight the moral dilemma surround this issue, but instead to use this article to further the public support on their crusade against video games. Quite honestly this sums up the poor quality newspaper in a nutshell, and so I can't expect any justice to be found here. We'll get to the letter the school sent home to parents later on, but now I just want to analyse the brilliant reporting skills of 'The Daily Mail' with their valiant attempt at brainwashing their readers about the perils of playing video games.

Here we go then, this is The Daily Mail's attempts at propaganda, and I have to say that I couldn't agree more. Just how dare 'Call of Duty', the realistic military first person shooter, depict a blood thirsty soldier. I mean surely if the developers wanted to be realistic they would have made the game center on one of those nice soldiers that's employed to make tea for people in foreign countries. Oh wait, that scenario doesn't exist, and neither does anything in this fantasy world 'The Mail' think we should live in. If the author had actually bothered to play the game, even for a few minutes, they would discover a narrative filled with moral dilemmas and ethical scenarios, and so to say the killing is merciless is simply misinformed. There is a huge difference in a soldier being killed in a virtual environment and a human being killed in a war zone, and the armed forces is something 'The Daily Mail' actively supports. So is it really the video games that are condoning violence here, or the paper? But I agree that this 'kill or be killed' attitude is obviously going too far. It's almost like that attitude is prevalent in actual warfare, which is strange as 'Call of Duty' is a realistic simulation, and so it's obviously the fault of the game developers for not realising that this violence is distasteful, and not your pathetic reporting skills that need a reality check.

We then continue onto some other completely irrelevant issues. It just seems strange that in the Anders Breivik example you didn't mention the primary religious motive of the murders that as I'm sure you're aware centered around Islamophobia. I'm pretty sure that Breivik didn't get those motives from video games, and if anything he would of adopted them from a media source that constantly scrutinises the religion of Islamic extremists; wouldn't know anything about that would we 'Mr. Daily Mail'? Again, it's always the video game's fault and not your useless reporting skills. I just hate how you have to blame video games for that tragedy when of course in your deluded eyes religion has never killed anyone. Just one line of the manifesto mentioned his love of video games that are deemed violent, which when compared with the pages that were focused on religious oppression highlights that actually the shootings probably had nothing to do with violent video games. I'm sure in your thorough research you discovered that Breivik was a young man, and so the statistics will inform you that the majority of young adults play video games, and so being as the majority of video gamers are not murderers it might explain that this is a coincidence and not causative reason. You have provided no evidence as to why video games were the cause of the massacre, yet you still felt entitled to put this manipulative drivel in your box of odious lies. Funnily enough the same can be said for your other example, which again was an attack based on religious prejudices, which is again something you have failed to identify in your worthless article.

You then give me all the evidence I need to suggest that actually you know fuck all about violent video games. The first mistake is that you say 'Call of Duty 3' was set in London. Now 'Call of Duty 3' was a video game based on World War 2, and so I highly doubt that the game would be set in London, or for that matter have any effect on modern society. The game you're actually referring to is 'Call of Duty 8', which was title 'Modern Warfare 3'. That's such a rookie mistake that I'm sure won't happen again, unless of course it does just a few lines down. All you had to do was name two games correctly and you couldn't even do that. Again, 'Call of Duty 2' was another game based on World War 2, and you're actually referring to 'Call of Duty 6', entitled 'Modern Warfare 2'. You also fail to address the fact that the 'civilian killing' mission you're referring to was completely optional and comes with a warning when you buy the game, but then I doubt the paper would tell you that in their attempts at brainwashing. I can tell you this factual information because unlike you I've actually played both of these games, and so I'm in a far better position to comment on 'Call of Duty', as also with the school that are full of shit. At least do some fucking research before making sweeping generalisations that prove absolutely nothing, otherwise you just make yourself seem more ignorant than you already are. So it's clear that 'The Mail' know fuck all about video games, so let's see what our school governors have to say about them.

Unlike the school in question I've actually written a dissertation on the effect of violent video games in minors, and so I would like to reliably inform this governing body that to this day there has not been a single valid study that provides even a link between video games and violence or sexualised behaviour, yet alone a causative conclusion. So to me this act seems like a dismissal of scientific studies, and the embracing of your didactic and ignorant regime. It's a blatant abuse of power that has unfortunately meant that children in this one area have lost the same human rights as everyone else, even to the point where they are no longer allowed to look at the same screen as their parents. The board don't even mention violent or pornographic films, but then of course that form of radical media is nothing compared to the evil grip video games have over children's minds. I do agree that the regulation of video games in a household should be a parental responsibility, as does the PEGI rating system, but what PEGI understand is that children mature at a different rate and so therefore a unitary law cannot be enforced. I wish someone would have told 'The Thought Police of Nantwich' that, as then they might see what mindless morons they've become.

I also get the sense that this extremist organisation know nothing about video games as they cite the game 'Dogs of War' as an example of a violent video game. That 'Dogs of War' game was released in 1989, and so I highly doubt that a radically changing art form would have any effect on children today if it was produced in the late 80's, which is assuming of course that the children would even play it. This limited evidence is just no reason for this ridiculous action to be taken, that in theory could see the parents with a criminal record. The actual British government don't even act on this as they realise that a censorship tirade like this is both unnecessary and not going to have any effect, especially if that effect is 'neglection'. Okay underage children playing video games may technically be illegal, but then so is blackmail, which you seem to be partaking in with your pitiful threats towards parents. I just find this whole argument unbelievable since the school have not provided one single source to back any of their points up, which is mainly because they couldn't find one, and secondly because they're ignorant assholes. Am I honestly just meant to take their word that modern video games are violent when they can't even name three games that were released after the 1990s? Surely the school must realise that this method looks extremely unreliable to the trained eye when it's painfully obvious that you haven't got a clue about modern video games.

Maybe in the future I will be proved wrong, as humanity discovers that video games are a primary cause of violence and sexualised behaviour, but at this time acting on an assumption would be a ludicrous thing to do. I'm almost certain that the subject brought up in history classes would be pretty shocking, so before this school board criticise other forms of media maybe they should take a hard look at themselves and see who really is influencing the minds of children. Still, you surely understand that these controversial items in history are still not enough to make the children act on them. That would be like me banning history classes because it could influence the students to invade Poland, despite no actual evidence to suggest this. Just top meddling in parental affairs and get on with the job of teaching, and maybe then you might learn how stupid your new law is. Stop dictating the private lives of your students, or I can assure that you won't end up in a digital world of wonder, but a dystopian world were everything has become censored.