Video Games Violence isn't that Bad or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Blood and Gore

Please bear in mind that all information given in this post is relevant to the UK only. For information about the age rating system in other countries, please consult this website.

First-person shooter season is over and not only does this mean that EA and Activision have stopped releasing games, it's also given a bunch of people some time to get really rather annoyed. No, it is not the thousands of disappointed fans, shocked to discover that the latest Brawl of Duty: Modern Gorefare game is not quite as new as they had expected it to be, instead, it is those most humble of creatures: parents. They have been shocked as they see the huge amounts of violence in these games, and take to the streets to protest. Sort-of. I would join these protesters and write a long post about how needless violence in games is and all that, but someone else already did that. And they had lots of sciencey stuff in their's, so I can't really compete.

Instead, I shall try to put the arguments of the other side, so often expressed in language that is filled with so much profanity that it is difficult to agree with the ****s. So it is with a slight amount of regret that I dive into my three reasons why people should stop worrying and learn to love blood and gore:

1) The Age Rating System

It is mainly parents who complain about violence in video games. If a game has an age rating which is older than the person who is attempting to purchase it (as long as it is rated by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, not Pan European Game Information which has no legal power inside the UK), then any decent member of retail staff would refuse to sell it to them. If a child is able to buy and play video game of which the parent is unaware then I would blame that on the parent. Does your seven-year-old need to know your credit card number? Really?

2) Violence Exists

The above statement is a fact; violence exists. So isn't it more important to tackle actual violence rather than objecting to events that never really happen or directly harm anyone? However, as the anti-video-game-violence-I-love-hyphens-protester would say, video game violence contributes to real-world violence. But does it? Well... maybe a bit. Despite this, most violence is caused by desperation. Desperation is caused by poverty, poverty is caused by unemployment, unemployment is caused by a lack of jobs and a lack of jobs is caused by the decline of companies. So by campaigning against video games (and therefore the companies that make them), aiming to send them into bankruptcy, aren't anti-video-game-violence-I-love-hyphens-protesters causing real world violence at least as much as the games they hate so very much?

3) The Army

The idea that more people are complaining about video game violence than the existence of the army seems rather strange. There are two reasons why this is happening: firstly, video games are quite an easy target, as they are big companies which are often seen as exploiting the average consumer through over-pricing and suchlike; secondly, significantly more families have directly experienced Call of Duty than front-line combat. An irony that is often pointed out is that one can serve in the army at seventeen, while Call of Duty is rated eighteen-plus. Furthermore, in Northern Africa children are actually being forced to fight by people like Joseph Kony, while here in Europe we're making all this fuss about children playing games which simulate combat (normally in a highly unrealistic manner). Does that make sense to you?


I end with a quote for Hunter S. Thompson (I think that fact that I'm quoting from a man who shot himself aged sixty-seven proves the point I made at the beginning that violence in video games is something to be avoided, but I stand by its relevance nonetheless):


'I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.'

-PWN-

The Pointlessness of Social Networks

Once more I greet thee, good sir.
PWN was going to publish some Social Network business (though he gave up), so I thought I'd tell you what my philosophy has to say on the matter.









































I seem to be just about the only person in my class who thinks that "Tweeting" or Facebook is a waste of time. Well, here goes; there is no point whatsoever in staying on a computer for hours, telling your friends that you are eating scrambled eggs. Yes, it has come to my attention that people who have really caught the Facebug want to stay on the computer, and so find nothing better to do than to pass the time by telling each other the most useless information ever found before on the web. They justify this with the simple statement that they want to keep in contact with their friends-most of which they meet daily. I think that computers and technology can be quite addicting.

You will probably say that I'm being too harsh? Well, maybe, but the simple fact remains that it is harder to look away from a flashing screen than a sheet of paper. I do not think that this is accidental; we all know that most money is made from computers through advertising, and, of course, it goes without saying that most advertising agents would love a machine which flashes advertising without the victim being able to look away.
Most advertising agents have studied psychology, and they use it to great extents, and a social network is of course a centre of human psychology; we are social animals, we like to keep contact with the rest of the pack, and so it would seem logical for our brains to get us all to want to go on these networks. Here, all those humans who cannot resist their brains are gathered, and so advertisers and other brain-controllers would logically center all their resources there, trying to brainwash you into wanting to buy shampoo online.
While we are on the topic of brainwashing and psychology, I would mention another aspect of the Social psychology; the Pack mentality. We all want the IPhone 4s, or whatever number we're on now, because it's the latest fashion, the latest Must. Why is this the case? Because someone else wants it. This is quite a hard instinct to overcome, and it is easy for companies to flood Facebook with

"I'm getting the iPad, it's so cool! Are you getting it?"

 Much of the time, it is the company which uses its psychologists to start a fashion.
There are those of you who probably say that you only use those networks to keep in contact with people on the other side of the world? Well, bear in mind what I say about how easy it is for people to get money off you on the web, and keep off it if you can. I know I'm using it right now to tell you, but I suppose, if we could use a magazine rather than a computer, I would certainly go for it.

Yours most sincerely,

-JAFHR-

My Weird World of Fashion

I know barely anything about fashion. In fact, I don't even know what the word means. Here's some definition from the Google dictionary:  'A popular trend, esp. in styles of dress, ornament, or behavior.' You have noticed that I rather like trilby hats. The only reason for this is that I saw one in a charity shop for £3. I don't buy any of my clothes first-hand. In fact, half my clothes are from my cousin. The one thing I know about fashion I know from my grandmother, and this is this: 'Green bathtubs are out'. That's it. Really.

So then, what am I going to fill this page with? That is a good question. I'm not really sure. Perhaps I do, unconsciously know more about style than I think. However, I ought to distance style and fashion at this point. Style is (almost) constant, there are many things which are stylish, some of which I own (iPad 2, Skullcandy headphones), but that is not the same as fashion. Style is understated and elegant, fashion is all about being as outlandish as possible because everything sensible that can be done has been done. That's just the way I see, if you want to rage at me in the comments then go ahead.

-PWN-