The Next Generation Of Kids

[Let's Henshin!]

60's apparently Puff the Magic Dragon was about Drugs.

[UltraHau]

Pfffthahahaha.Those who don't know the last couple of decades of history are usually the ones in the process of repeating it.Back in the day, D&D was in the same position you're putting the CoD games in now - there was a big campaign against it, with people saying that it was corrupting the youth, and that kids were going to go on violent witchcraft murder sprees because of it.

I will say it again: Are you seriously comparing D&D with games like Mortal Kombat and Modern Warfare?

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

In terms of the reaction they got from those looking for an excuse to freak out about "kids today", yes. The reaction is essentially identical, and has about as much basis in fact.

[Laughing Man]

lololol @all the people jumping on the "blame the media" bandwagon. Fun Fact: A child's home environment has a greater influence on them than what they watch, play, or listen to.but applause to those of you with enough sense to realize that blaming music and video games for the behavior of modern youth is one of the most tired and inane things you can possibly do.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Eucliwood

[Let's Henshin!]

Personally I think that rather than get frustrated at the next generation, we should instead be focused on fixing the problems of our generation.

[pls respond]

I will say it again: Are you seriously comparing D&D with games like Mortal Kombat and Modern Warfare?

i think it's hilarious that you find it ridiculous to compare D&D to CoD. you have to take into consideration that when D&D was under fire, people weren't exposed to levels of violence presented in more modern games. to them, D&D was pretty violent, not to mention the more mystical elements of the games that got attacked by the religious (let's leave that part alone, no need for a religion war to start). so yeah, D&D could easily be considered the CoD of it's age.so now, look at the D&D hysteria and how the kids from that generation turned out fine. you're acting similarly to the people that fought against D&D. calm down. the younger generation's going to turn out fine.Laughin' Man (Eucliwood) is right once again, the media has little effect. Edited January 28, 2012 by Idunnolol

[Noxryn]

Are you seriously comparing D&D with Modern Warfare? They're not even close in terms of violence. And I was lenient; I could have used Mortal Kombat or Doom 3 as an example instead.

Just curious, but what's your point? Those games aren't designed specifically for children, that's why they have M ratings and why they card you when you purchase those types of games. If anything is to blame, if this stuff was actually corrupting the children (hint hint: it's not really corrupting anyone) and children were acting out from it (like the BB gun example, or holding a "weapons = toys" mindset) then that's something the parents should really attend to. You know, that whole "parenting" phenomena -- it's quite effective in helping any child progress into a more sensible person.Also, for the kids who enjoy emulating Modern Warfare and COD, there's a fancy sport for them -- airsoft (oh, and paintball) which is perfectly safe if played legally, with adult supervision and with proper safety wear. Those sports, at the very least airsoft, generally stress safety, stress the danger of weaponry (and even toy projectile-based items) and educate as well as emulate. So, if there was a parent who had a kid who was shooting signs outside or something, it's up to that parent to talk to their own kid, possibly reevaluate the maturity level of their own kid and then decide what is okay and what isn't (in terms of media), and then there are safe alternatives that not only keep a kid active (instead of becoming a gluttonous monster in front of a TV), but also teach that kid maturity when it comes to dealing with dangerous (or potentially dangerous) items. (And teamwork, sportsmanship, etc... and not being arrested for shooting a potentially-dangerous device in public).I haven't heard of a single instance where any kid, teenager or younger, shot up a place because it looked cool in DOOM. Even in my Law Enforcement class, when we covered violent media and crimes that contained violence, it was pretty much deduced (a psychological profile/evaluation) that while those who watch an irregular amount of violent media and take joy in the violence are generally more prone to violence, that isn't the sole and only reason for why those people might do something violent. (Correlation is not Causation, in other words). Generally, it's other factors that contribute to a violent outburst that often have to do with things like family trouble, prejudice, school trouble, harrassment, and so on. Media doesn't need to censor itself, the parents' need to censor what they expose to their children pending on maturity level. (Or just be better role models).

Due time? Maturity is something that is gained gradually and deliberately; children don't just suddenly become more mature as they become older - they must constantly have an explicit goal of maturing; if they are not interested in maturing, they will stay children the rest of their lives. Growing old is required; growing up is optional, so to speak.

Not really, sure wanting to be mature can be an aspect, but it's by no means an "explicit" goal. Often times, people mature because they begin to understand what is right and wrong in their social paradigm, and that those who behave, act well and are generally nicer people to be around have an easier time than those who constantly cut class, get arrested, get grounded and punished by their parents. There's also a point where some people develop common sense, which in and of itself has a pretty big part in the whole "act mature" deal (like, "hitting someone doesn't solve anything, it just gets me in bigger trouble."). Plus, life experience itself can help mature someone, without that someone saying "I wanna be grown up now" -- if someone were to witness, say, aggravated battery (or just battery [which covers stuff like hitting someone]) and then see the cops arrest that person, odds are the onlooker will think "gee, I better not do that unless I want to end up in a situation like that." There's many, many other factors that go into maturity as well, without it being an explicit goal in anyone's head. (Even television shows can help with maturity, and yes I am pointing at the current My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic program).Every generation has its dolts, its criminals, its immature-oldies, just as much as every generation has its geniuses, its braniacs, its novelists, and so on and so forth. It's not new, and odds are there was a time when a number of mature people of the current generation were just as ill mannered as those after them. (Basically, this is just part of that great whole cycle of "I hate the new generation/the old generation is so out of touch.")

[Axilus Prime]

My little bro is challenging me to fights constantly. If I don't hold back, I get in trouble. But since I have to hold back, he never learns.

[Angel Beat]

Kids these days... Not much different than 15 years ago, when I was 10~About that media influencing kids thingamajig...In my youth, I watched a lot of violent movies and shows.I turned out quite alright.Violent and crass media is of all ages~

Edited January 28, 2012 by Valenti

[pls respond]

My little bro is challenging me to fights constantly. If I don't hold back, I get in trouble. But since I have to hold back, he never learns.

you're 15, which means your little brother is probably not too old. give him time dude, kid will learn. most kids snap out of stupid phases like those eventually Edited January 28, 2012 by Idunnolol

[Let's Henshin!]

It seems a few people here are forgetting we too are kids. Newsflash people being a teenager is still a kid. So yes I'm a kid, technically speaking these so called stupid kids are in fact part of our generation. Thus it is our responsibility to be better role models and fix this generation.

[Bundalings]

I really have lost all hope in humanity due to the direction kids are pointed in today. The world's going to be in hot water when THEY take over. Seriously, thinking about this stuff makes me depressed.

I admit freely that as a nineteen year old I am still okay with being considered a kid (I suppose I would say I'm a bit out of it myself, but that's neither here nor there). But I would like to point out that you're thirteen and therefore pretty definitely a kid - one of the generation you're complaining about. Have a little faith.Edit: I don't mean for that to sound offensive or pretentious, by the way. I suppose it might sound that way. Nothing wrong with being younger. lol i like shovels dig dig digThere have always been twerps, there will always be twerps. That's that.

listening to people such as Lady Gaga.

LADY GAGAA TRUE VILLAIN TO OUR CHILDRENWE MUST QUELL THIS BEAST BEFORE SHE DAMAGES OUR SOCIETY EVEN MORE

I appreciate your sarcasm. I would also like to say while I can't speak for the children of the earth, Lady Gaga is to me a great positive influence. Sure some of her songs are adult (well, a lot) but she seems a great person.

Finally, Bunda is correct; this topic is hilarious when viewed as people discussing fillies.

I'm glad someone agrees with me. Edited January 28, 2012 by Bundalings

[UltraHau]

I was saying it's the parent's fault, not the media. We have M ratings on video games for a reason, guys.

[Simulacrum]

XD My argument was shrunk down into a single quote. Nice.To make my argument easier to read, this is what I think:Parents need to watch their kids, restrict them from things that are unappropriate for them as individuals,(Not just media, everything) and teach them morals, which, in my opinion, the basis of intelligent behavior.Please, don't just quote a section of that.

I was saying it's the parent's fault, not the media. We have M ratings on video games for a reason, guys.

Also, this holds a gigantic pearl of wisdom, considering it's the parent who lets their child play those M rated games/Doesn't pay attention to what the kids are playing. To continue my rant, parents seem to spend less time with their children these days, considering that, normally, both of them work, and the child is in day care and school a very large fraction of the day, which leds to the child not having any one to look up to, except friend, who can be both good and bad. There. Rant finished.

[Toa Zaz]

Yeah. That's right. Intimidation and fear are always the best methods of accomplishment. Keep 'em li'l @#$%&*#s in line. Let's go bring out the brass knuckles and head to a preschool....I'm not for intimidating kids at all. Although the young generation has been getting a little egotistical, to the point of maybe being a little unhealthy...

[BioGio]

Pfffthahahaha.Those who don't know the last couple of decades of history are usually the ones in the process of repeating it.Back in the day, D&D was in the same position you're putting the CoD games in now - there was a big campaign against it, with people saying that it was corrupting the youth, and that kids were going to go on violent witchcraft murder sprees because of it.

I will say it again: Are you seriously comparing D&D with games like Mortal Kombat and Modern Warfare?

Yes. I though that Shadows and I had made our points very clear... There was, historically, a huge reaction against D&D (and comic books, too). Comics were very violent--so much so that there were congressional hearings about censoring them in the United States. To say that your concerns are more "real" or genuine than those of before is rather ridiculous and precisely what every generation prior has insisted during their bouts of moral panic.Also, I saw that someone said that D&D and comics were more violent than most media of that time. I would personally hold that there hasn't really been any increase in the violence portrayed by media (except when censorship has been lessened and when more forms of media became popular--that just opens up a new door for portrayals of mature content). Either way, DeeVee made a great point before: Wouldn't our parents and grandparents (and the many generations prior to them) be extremely aggressive and immature because many of them grew up in a period when lynchings were mass spectacles? Or are video games somehow different?

XD My argument was shrunk down into a single quote. Nice. Don't you just love that? To make my argument easier to read, this is what I think:Parents need to watch their kids, restrict them from things that are unappropriate for them as individuals,(Not just media, everything) and teach them morals, which, in my opinion, the basis of intelligent behavior. I'd disagree based on "opinion" and personal standards (i.e., my belief that morals are not taught but rather learned), but I guess that there's no point in arguing here.Please, don't just quote a section of that.

I was saying it's the parent's fault, not the media. We have M ratings on video games for a reason, guys.

Also, this holds a gigantic pearl of wisdom, considering it's the parent who lets their child play those M rated games/Doesn't pay attention to what the kids are playing. But you're still claiming that playing the games inspires violence, etc., which is scapegoating the media. Even if you blame the parents for giving kids the games, the point remains unchanged; it's still that the media supposedly inspire bad behavior. To continue my rant, parents seem to spend less time with their children these days (compared to?), considering that, normally, both of them work, and the child is in day care and school a very large fraction of the day, which leads to the child not having any one to look up to, except friend, who can be both good and bad. That parents spend less time with their children now is blatantly false. See this study from 2007, which concluded that parents increased the amount of time spent with their children drastically (by 153% for fathers and 21% for mothers) since 1965, which is known as a "golden time" for family togetherness.There. Rant finished.

Responses are boldface.

lololol @all the people jumping on the "blame the media" bandwagon. Fun Fact: A child's home environment has a greater influence on them than what they watch, play, or listen to.

Here, Eucliwood/LM has perfectly explained that--even if we are going to blame parents for providing access to games, movies, or music--the games themselves don't actually make a difference. Now, parents who aren't involved or interested enough in their children's lives to try to steer them from violet media may be bad parents or impart "bad" morals, but this is, again, a matter of correlation and not causation.A quick apology: I'm sorry if this post is a bit America-centric, but I can't really think of examples of modern moral panic from many other countries.~ BioGio

[You just lost the game]

Yes, kids have been getting dumber in the past years. Mostly, the schools teaching junk that doesn't have any real-life uses.The schools are trying to make working little yes-men, not thinkers. The corporations get there workers and less competition.It seems that a moron really is born every day.@ProtohumanI do lol at the fact that you said that kids are too self-confident. What's wrong with that? If you beat yourself up about ###### that doesn't matter, how will you ever succeed?

Edited January 29, 2012 by You just lost the game

[Axilus Prime]

Lol, you got word filtered.Anyway, I was under the impression this topic was talking about kids under 10, Idunnolol.

[CroMagnonMan]

On the subject of comparing D&D to Modern Warfare: saying that the reaction to the one was the same as the other is a legitimate observation; saying that therefore no arguments can be made about the latter's negative influence, by itself or compared to the other, is NOT. I don't really have anything to say about video games being a negative influence, but you go back in time and give somebody from the D&D era an M Rated game from today, and OF COURSE they're going to freak out more at the latter one, because OF COURSE the latter is more violent, more visceral! You are being staunch and unreasonable to propose otherwise.One argument somebody made was that, since there was less media exposure to violence, D&D was "practically" the CoD of its time. But there is a difference between the perception of violence and the actual level of violence that is occurring. The latter does not change from generation to generation, it is absolute. Of course more exposure to violent material is going to have a different effect from exposure to less violence, regardless of societal perception. But frankly I find the idea that people are "getting used" to more violence far more disturbing... and even more disturbing that apparently this person doesn't find it disturbing...And as for public hangings and such: any violence experienced in real life back then could not have equaled the violence that can -- potentially, mind you -- be observed on a day-to-day basis now. "The media" -- video games, television, the Internet -- it's all there constantly ready to be exposed to; so unless these kids were shuffled off to witness an execution on a daily basis, I don't see how the comparison is legitimate. Besides, I imagine observing violence firsthand would make one less inclined to be violent or "immature" oneself, rather than observing or absorbing an "idea" of violence portrayed in media, which would encourage a fantasy disengaged from reality to develop.I don't even think modern media is a big problem (in terms of violence, that is), I just find it annoying how people are shutting down other's opinions on it. Because obviously the "hate the media bandwagon" can have no reasoning behind it whatsoever -- it's just a bunch of paranoid losers who can't get with the times. Am I right, guys? ...I really hate that smug attitude. If big things change in a society, it's perfectly reasonable to worry that they will have a big, possibly negative, effect on the generation to come.On the subject of every generation thinking the next one is worse off: saying that it's a cycle is a legitimate observation; saying that therefore the past generation is always wrong about the next generation being worse off, and cannot provide any line of reasoning to defend their opinion, is NOT. Do you think that throughout the course of human history there has never been a situation where the next generation really has been worse off than the previous -- that it's been on an even tilt for all eternity? Nonsense. What if it turned out the new generation was heading in a bad direction, and no one was there to stop it because everyone kept saying "oh, it's just like last time, it'll all turn out like it usually does"?We shouldn't be discouraging each other from criticizing the new generation. That doesn't mean we can't go about that criticism rationally. But what people seem to be proposing is that everyone who takes issue with the way kids are acting today are just ignorant to the way kids were when they were kids themselves. Thus they are incapable of forming a rational thought on the subject -- obviously. It's good to bear in mind, of course, and I can appreciate the tendency of people to confirm each other's and their own bias -- we live with that tendency everyday, that's why we always tend to think we are right -- but that fact shouldn't be used for a convenient excuse to question the validity of someone's viewpoint without examining it firsthand. But even if today's kids aren't any worse than the kids of yesterday (I'm not saying anything on that either way), that doesn't necessarily mean that they are kids in the same exact way as those other kids. Today's kids could have different problems from the ones we had. And it should be obvious that kids from centuries ago had VERY different problems from the ones we had, even if they also had some of the same ones. It's not all the same throughout eternity, whatever you might think.And you know, it's easy to look back on the older generation and their misconceptions and think, "Ha, what fools we all are," when you aren't looking at the things they were right about. Who knows how many bad things almost pervaded a given new generation that the old generation prevented from happening, and we don't look back on those things because we all think those things are obvious, who would ever think to do them in the first place? The kids, that's who, and the new legacy of adults. A lot of good things have happened because the newer displaced the outdated, especially looking back at the 1900s, but that doesn't mean new is automatically harmless, or that it is always progress and never degradation, or that everything will continue like it always has and there is never anything new under the sun.I don't know, maybe I'm overreacting. I'm feeling tired and agitated, and I feel very strongly about this. Oh well, other people apparently do as well, so take from me what you will.~QMark

[BioGio]

1. There was a lot more to the moral panic over D&D than violence, but as a few others have pointed out, talking about the other facets of the panic could stretch BZPower's rules substantially. (This is actually why I've been trying to point the discussion in the point of comic books--not because I feel like I don't have a good point or anything, FTR.)2. Violent crime has decreased dramatically over the past 20 years. It's a fact that the amount of violence isn't immutable, unless you believe in some sort of violence-mercantilism. (yes that was a joke okay?)3. Wait, so the fact that people took part in and cheered for executions and mob lynchings and doesn't indicate that people have always been violent/exposed to violence? I don't think that quantity of violence is the most important. There has always been glamorized public violence--and in many cases (e.g., lynchings of black Americans who did not follow the Jim Crow laws) it was even more despicable than what we see today in the media.4. There is actually no actual, scientific evidence that violent media somehow cause delinquency. It's a matter of correlation and not causation (violent kids playing violent games, etc.). (I think that Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games, Lawrence Kutner PhD and Cheryl K. Olson ScD, a Harvard study should be sufficient to help in proving this--although I have many more such studies--but of course there's some disagreement here.) That argument has no valid basis in scientific evidence, so of course it makes sense to say what LM, Shadows, and I have said.There are a few more points that I could respond to, but after QMark's paragraph four, everything became a bit more opinion-based and impossible to demonstrably prove or disprove.Overall, I'm relatively optimistic about the future; I see that our current situation is greatly better than the past, and there are plenty of overall positive cultural trends (e.g., the modern movements toward greater equality--even if they are hardly universal). Thus, I'm not an alarmist who sees the "corruption" of our youth. (Plus, I'm strongly against any form of censorship, which is why I'm going after the media blame so vehemently.)~ BioGioEDIT: Ba! Site had commenting system.EDIT 2: Some pretty interesting font stuff going on here, I see.EDIT 3: Woah, I didn't know that Ponify could alter why I've typed.

Edited January 30, 2012 by BioGio

[Zeddy]

I have noticed a lack of respect in the kids I've encountered for people older than them. I've seen kids kicking and screaming and manipulating their parents to buy them something they really want, regardless of the fact that they're barely 5 years old. I've seen kids blatantly disrespect authority figures (teachers, parents, siblings etc.)I've also noticed that kids are maturing faster, even though they may not be able to handle it. I think that's the main problem. You see these 8 year olds thrust into the world with their phones and iPads and how do you expect them to react? They're kids, so naturally they'll pretend they're the center of the universe and you're some puny being who should submit to them.But I also agree with what Eeko said, that this is just the 'vocal minority', and you just tend to notice them more because they're louder. From my experience, a majority of the kids I've met are quite likeable and treat me with respect, as I them.also please excuse the grammar its 2 AM and i be sleepy

[Legolover-361]

Gosh guys, you're repeating what the previous generation criticized you guys about, and using those same arguments about the new generation.

No member of an older generation has criticized my role models or media choices, so my criticisms of other members of my generation are justified. :PTo those who say the rude kids are an exception: I've been around schoolkids almost my entire life, and in my experience most of them (not all, but most) use profanity, joke about adult topics, and play M-rated video games that I honestly don't think some of them are ready for. I think the peer pressure-ridden environment of school contributes to kids' behaviors, which makes me question how mature they'll become by the time they enter college. (Remember, this is only from my experience.) In my Boy Scout troop, a good half of the troop doesn't quiet down when we're told to fall in; our Scout leaders have gotten really annoyed by that obstreperous behavior, and so have I.To those who say maturation takes time: I agree with you, but I also agree with those who say parents need to look out more for their children. I've been compared to other kids as "sheltered", thanks to being homeschooled; but I don't particularly want to act the way other kids do.I don't see many positive culture trends in society, myself. It seems that people are growing used to curse words and greater (sometimes unnecessary) violence in media, parents letting their kids do whatever they want, selfishness, etc. -- I know such qualities were still present in the past, but the fact that they're still here isn't very positive in and of itself. I can't say much more about society's current trends without getting too political for BZPower (I think people are campaigning for equality in a lot of wrong ways, but I won't say any more than that); until we start spreading beyond Earth and constructing the basis for an interstellar civilization, I won't be particularly impressed. :POne specific reply, to the debate about criticizing parents letting their children watch bad content being equal to criticizing media: That isn't true, because it's parents' responsibilities to raise children, not the people who create the media some of us see as violent. Just because Family Guy airs doesn't mean kids have to watch it, or parents have to let their children see it.EDIT:

I've also noticed that kids are maturing faster, even though they may not be able to handle it. I think that's the main problem. You see these 8 year olds thrust into the world with their phones and iPads and how do you expect them to react? They're kids, so naturally they'll pretend they're the center of the universe and you're some puny being who should submit to them.

I think it's less "maturing faster" and more "trying to mature faster", but otherwise I agree with this sentiment. Edited January 29, 2012 by Legolover-361

[Let's Henshin!]

Quite frankly I don't understand why all these kids what to play M-Rated games, or how there parents let them. It says 17+ for a reason. I myself am not allowed to play most M-Rated games, and I'm happy with that. I play games for their story not for senseless violence. For example one of the few games I can play is Assassin's Creed, and even when I play, I turn the blood off. It's pointless, in my opinion to put all this violence in games. However don't get me wrong, I don't think it's the medias fault, but rather the fault of the parents. Why parents let kids under the age of 10 watch R-Rated movies and play M-Rated games is beyond me. The rating system was created for a reason. In my mind it's just plain irresponsible for parents to allow their kids to play such games. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't swear words considered bad words. If so then why do parents let their kids play games and watch movies filled with swear words. How does 17+ equal 10 and under. Just because a certain media exists, it shouldn't force parents to give their kids that media. Parents should exercise good judgement when it comes to choosing what media is right for their kids.

[Dralcax]

Quite frankly I don't understand why all these kids what to play M-Rated games, or how there parents let them. It says 17+ for a reason. I myself am not allowed to play most M-Rated games, and I'm happy with that. I play games for their story not for senseless violence. For example one of the few games I can play is Assassin's Creed, and even when I play, I turn the blood off. It's pointless, in my opinion to put all this violence in games.However don't get me wrong, I don't think it's the medias fault, but rather the fault of the parents. Why parents let kids under the age of 10 watch R-Rated movies and play M-Rated games is beyond me. The rating system was created for a reason. In my mind it's just plain irresponsible for parents to allow their kids to play such games. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't swear words considered bad words. If so then why do parents let their kids play games and watch movies filled with swear words. How does 17+ equal 10 and under. Just because a certain media exists, it shouldn't force parents to give their kids that media. Parents should exercise good judgement when it comes to choosing what media is right for their kids.

Well, once, a few years ago, I saw the B-word graffitied on an elementary school play structure. There were also names and a portrait of swiss cheese, but that's not quite so alarming. Hmm, connection there?

[pls respond]

Anyway, I was under the impression this topic was talking about kids under 10, Idunnolol.

okay, how does that make a difference to what i said at all?

However don't get me wrong, I don't think it's the medias fault, but rather the fault of the parents. Why parents let kids under the age of 10 watch R-Rated movies and play M-Rated games is beyond me. The rating system was created for a reason. In my mind it's just plain irresponsible for parents to allow their kids to play such games. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't swear words considered bad words. If so then why do parents let their kids play games and watch movies filled with swear words. How does 17+ equal 10 and under. Just because a certain media exists, it shouldn't force parents to give their kids that media. Parents should exercise good judgement when it comes to choosing what media is right for their kids.

but see by saying that it's the parent's fault, you're implying that the media is still damaging their minds which is saying that it's the media's fault, which signs point to not being true. Edited January 30, 2012 by Idunnolol

[Legolover-361]

However don't get me wrong, I don't think it's the medias fault, but rather the fault of the parents. Why parents let kids under the age of 10 watch R-Rated movies and play M-Rated games is beyond me. The rating system was created for a reason. In my mind it's just plain irresponsible for parents to allow their kids to play such games. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't swear words considered bad words. If so then why do parents let their kids play games and watch movies filled with swear words. How does 17+ equal 10 and under. Just because a certain media exists, it shouldn't force parents to give their kids that media. Parents should exercise good judgement when it comes to choosing what media is right for their kids.

but see by saying that it's the parent's fault, you're implying that the media is still damaging their minds which is saying that it's the media's fault, which signs point to not being true.

The media by itself says little. How a child's parents treat the media says a lot more. Onarax is saying that because parents give into their kids' demands to play violent video games and watch adult TV shows, the kids get the idea that the mature content is A-okay for them, and they thus curse and joke about adult subjects because they feel it's fine. This is my own interpretation of Onarax's words, though, so take it with a grain of salt.

[pls respond]

The media by itself says little. How a child's parents treat the media says a lot more. Onarax is saying that because parents give into their kids' demands to play violent video games and watch adult TV shows, the kids get the idea that the mature content is A-okay for them, and they thus curse and joke about adult subjects because they feel it's fine. This is my own interpretation of Onarax's words, though, so take it with a grain of salt.

the thing is that kids can enjoy content considered "adult" and still turn out a well adjusted member of society. you also have to realize that kids find about about "adult" subjects even if their parents don't actively expose them to it. they'll find ways to access the content, regardless of the parents. it's the nature of being a child. i'm fairly certain a good number of you all have done that in your days. i'm certain most of your parents did too, and you probably look up to your parents as role models. so really, it does not hurt much for parents to allow kids to see a horror film or play a Call Of Duty game. kids know there's a line between fantasy and reality.

[CroMagnonMan]

2. Violent crime has decreased dramatically over the past 20 years. It's a fact that the amount of violence isn't immutable, unless you believe in some sort of violence-mercantilism. (yes that was a joke okay?)

I was afraid I hadn't phrased that point properly, and apparently I didn't. What I meant by "the level of violence is constant" is that, when considering any act of violence, it doesn't matter how used to violence the observer is, that particular act of violence will always be more violent than a lesser act and less violent than a greater act. So even if an observer lives in a place where, for example, murder is commonplace, murder is still among the most violent acts possible. My point was only that, if we assume these subjects we are talking about have any negative effect on kids, then the actual severity of the violence (or potentially any other influence) they are being exposed to is just as important as the cultural perception of how severe the violence is.

3. Wait, so the fact that ponies took part in and cheered for executions and mob lynchings and doesn't indicate that ponies have always been violent/exposed to violence? I don't think that quantity of violence is the most important. There has always been glamorized public violence--and in many cases (e.g., lynchings of black Americans who did not follow the Jim Crow laws) it was even more despicable than what we see today in the media.

I disagree. I see no reason why quantity of violence should not be considered as well as severity of violence. A single severe instance of violence, for instance, can be regarded as a concentration of violence, but several lesser instances of violence that occur very frequently can be thought to add up to the same severity. Plus, if we again assume violent media has an effect of kids, then it would have to be (from my perspective) a matter of conditioning -- and conditioning requires a persistent environment, rather than scattered instances. (But as for environment, the point again arises that family would have more of an impact than media, which you and the others are of course correct about.)

There are a few more points that I could respond to, but after QMark's paragraph four, everything became a bit more opinion-based and impossible to demonstrably prove or disprove.

Well, the natural response to an unprovable opinion is to provide an unprovable opinion on it, especially considering we're participating in an open discussion and not a scientific study... :/~QMark

[Angel Beat]

kids know there's a line between fantasy and reality.

And if they don't, they can be taught to know.

[You just lost the game]

Concerning the topic on video games and TV influence violence.That's all total bull. It's all political propganda to have there little "save the children" act so they can get votes. The media tries to link it and the moronic average citizen takes it as fact before they actually study it.Any child with a brain in their head will know that killing and stealing is wrong. The only reason it could be different, is if the parents teach them otherwise.Then they have the parents who never thought violent video games were bad before, but now they do because their child commited a violent act. They only try to blame the game, because they don't want to think their child would do that on purpose. Then the child will agree because they don't want to admit they did it without influence of anything else.Plus, ratings on games like MW is too high anyway. You can see the same amount of violence in Indiana Jones. Adults seem to be the only REAL morons here. >_>

Edited January 30, 2012 by LEGOR

[Legolover-361]

Any child with a brain in their head will know that killing and stealing is wrong. The only reason it could be different, is if the parents teach them otherwise.

I actually know of a family whose foster parents teach the kids to steal, pass drugs, etc. They live next to my nana, whose entire neighborhood complains about the family, but no legal actions have been taken to get the children out of that home. =/Anyway, I at least was not talking about killing and stealing above -- I meant to talk about kids' behavior towards other kids. If a kid spends a lot of his weekends on Xbox Live, shooting other players on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, he's probably going to be a little more arrogant (tease more), take violence a little less seriously, and consider life more of a competition -- that's not quite the best attitude. Believe me, if I began playing MW3, I'd probably change, too, most likely a little for the worst.

The media by itself says little. How a child's parents treat the media says a lot more. Onarax is saying that because parents give into their kids' demands to play violent video games and watch adult TV shows, the kids get the idea that the mature content is A-okay for them, and they thus curse and joke about adult subjects because they feel it's fine. This is my own interpretation of Onarax's words, though, so take it with a grain of salt.

the thing is that kids can enjoy content considered "adult" and still turn out a well adjusted member of society. you also have to realize that kids find about about "adult" subjects even if their parents don't actively expose them to it. they'll find ways to access the content, regardless of the parents. it's the nature of being a child. i'm fairly certain a good number of you all have done that in your days. i'm certain most of your parents did too, and you probably look up to your parents as role models. so really, it does not hurt much for parents to allow kids to see a horror film or play a Call Of Duty game. kids know there's a line between fantasy and reality.

Can you define "well-adjusted member of society"?Not all kids know there's a line between fantasy and reality. I know at least one example personally; that kid has been repeatedly told that fantasy and reality aren't analogous, yet he continues to act like life is a cartoon. He has watched a lot of cartoons, and he says that video games aren't good unless they're a little violent, so it's safe to say media has affected him.Don't take this as complete disagreement -- I definitely agree that there are kids mature enough to handle adult content (I'd use myself as an example, but that would be kind of vain ). I just disagree that media should not be considered one factor that leads to not-very-good behavior; it is a factor, just not necessarily for all people. Edited January 30, 2012 by Legolover-361

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

The only worrying trend I see here is that curmudgeons are getting younger.Back in my day, absurd moral panics were reserved for people who were at least over 30. Now we've got 13-year olds complaining that the 10-year olds won't get off their lawn.

[Protohuman]

@ProtohumanI do lol at the fact that you said that kids are too self-confident. What's wrong with that? If you beat yourself up about ###### that doesn't matter, how will you ever succeed?

Lol I just meant that as another word for cocky :lol:This thread is full of long posts that are too long to read XD

[Makaru]

This thread is full of long posts that are too long to read XD

They're also the posts that make the most sense.FUNNY THAT

[Bfahome]

Well I don't know about you guys but back when I was a kid I was perfectly normal!I was plenty mature and respectful.I mean if I wasn't mature and respectful I would've noticed, right?It's not like someone's perception of what counts as mature would change as they grow up, right?

[Gatanui]

I have noticed a lack of respect in the kids I've encountered for people older than them. I've seen kids kicking and screaming and manipulating their parents to buy them something they really want, regardless of the fact that they're barely 5 years old. I've seen kids blatantly disrespect authority figures (teachers, parents, siblings etc.)I've also noticed that kids are maturing faster, even though they may not be able to handle it. I think that's the main problem. You see these 8 year olds thrust into the world with their phones and iPads and how do you expect them to react? They're kids, so naturally they'll pretend they're the center of the universe and you're some puny being who should submit to them.But I also agree with what Eeko said, that this is just the 'vocal minority', and you just tend to notice them more because they're louder. From my experience, a majority of the kids I've met are quite likeable and treat me with respect, as I them.also please excuse the grammar its 2 AM and i be sleepy

Well I don't know about you guys but back when I was a kid I was perfectly normal!I was plenty mature and respectful.I mean if I wasn't mature and respectful I would've noticed, right?It's not like someone's perception of what counts as mature would change as they grow up, right?

Good point, Bfa. Zeddy, the thing is, there have always been kids kicking and screaming and manipulating their parents to buy them something they really want, regardless of the fact that they're barely five years old. There have always been kids blatantly disrespect authority figures. The thing is, you can´t see them before you live or even before you are older so you can judge them as being that way. If you are five years old and see a kid of the same age screaming for a LEGO set, you aren´t as likely going to think that he is a spoiled brat as when you are 17 years old and seeing such a kid. So the point is, that kind of kid has always existed, it´s just that you couldn´t and didn´t notice. ~Gata. Edited January 30, 2012 by Gatanui

[CroMagnonMan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't swear words considered bad words.

By the people who don't use them, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean that kids are getting hurt any by using swear words -- it's the attitude behind the words that matters. Of course, limiting bad exposure to those words is a good way of preventing that attitude, so you're correct.

Adults seem to be the only REAL morons here. >_>

~QMark

[Alex Humva]

I don't really want to involve myself in this heated debate, but I'd like to point out, violent video games don't necessarily equal out to 'RUN GUN AND KILL RAAAAR' on kids. Most of my friends have been playing such games since they were little and they're a pretty well rounded group of people. It's very hard to do actual studies on these things because you can't run a true imperial test. There's simply too many factors to isolate; so when you turn on the TV and hear a report about how scientists have found that eighty percent of kids who play violent video games become criminals, they're lying through their teeth, or at least not giving any of the full story. Living in ghettos -and I do not mean it as a racial slur, rather simply as a term denoting a bad neighborhood-, living with abusive parents, being abused by anyone, even simply just simply witnessing a school brawl, all of those things can influence a person.I'm just some random teenager, so I'm not going to try to claim to be an expert, but as far as I'm aware, the human psyche is still largely unknown. We've made great progress, but there's still a lot of triggers we don't know about. So to do a scientific study on a group of people with many, many, unknown variables, is the complete opposite of the meaning of scientific.So without any conclusive evidence, only generalizations and presumptions, saying that violence/adult behavior is influencing kids is similar to saying all men love sports or all women love sewing. It's a generalization based off of a few cases.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Sweetroll Thief Alex Humva

[Toa Zaz]

I think that past generations weren't as sheltered as some people seem to believe. Remember the '60s? Kids used to be exposed to a lot, early on. I don't think letting them play violent video games is too far out there.

[BioGio]

All responses in boldface, Georgia, black font--mostly as parenthetical statements.

kids know there's a line between fantasy and reality.

And if they don't, they can be taught to know. The only problem with that is that children are actually known to have a rather fuzzy grasp of reality vs. fantasy still, by about 20 most people are mature enough to learn and no longer be "corrupted" by the media.

2. Violent crime has decreased dramatically over the past 20 years. It's a fact that the amount of violence isn't immutable, unless you believe in some sort of violence-mercantilism. (yes that was a joke okay?)

I was afraid I hadn't phrased that point properly, and apparently I didn't. What I meant by "the level of violence is constant" is that, when considering any act of violence, it doesn't matter how used to violence the observer is, that particular act of violence will always be more violent than a lesser act and less violent than a greater act. So even if an observer lives in a place where, for example, murder is commonplace, murder is still among the most violent acts possible. My point was only that, if we assume these subjects we are talking about have any negative effect on kids, then the actual severity of the violence (or potentially any other influence) they are being exposed to is just as important as the cultural perception of how severe the violence is. Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.

3. Wait, so the fact that people took part in and cheered for executions and mob lynchings and doesn't indicate that people have always been violent/exposed to violence? I don't think that quantity of violence is the most important. There has always been glamorized public violence--and in many cases (e.g., lynchings of black Americans who did not follow the Jim Crow laws) it was even more despicable than what we see today in the media.

I disagree. I see no reason why quantity of violence should not be considered as well as severity of violence. A single severe instance of violence, for instance, can be regarded as a concentration of violence, but several lesser instances of violence that occur very frequently can be thought to add up to the same severity. Plus, if we again assume violent media has an effect of kids, then it would have to be (from my perspective) a matter of conditioning -- and conditioning requires a persistent environment, rather than scattered instances. (But as for environment, the point again arises that family would have more of an impact than media, which you and the others are of course correct about.) Yeah, I'm really done with this whole media thing. However, the fact that families would participate in and praise those who committed lynchings really says a lot about the idea that violence hasn't. Now, kids have the message that you can kill video aliens from games. In prior decades, murder of human beings (on racial grounds) was actually praised and accepted by families--yet my parents and grandparents (or, rather, those who are still around) turned out just about fine to my knowledge (although my grandma was a bit of a racist, I hear).

There are a few more points that I could respond to, but after QMark's paragraph four, everything became a bit more opinion-based and impossible to demonstrably prove or disprove.

Well, the natural response to an unprovable opinion is to provide an unprovable opinion on it, especially considering we're participating in an open discussion and not a scientific study... :/ I disagree. If I just said: Nuh-uh you're wrong here's what I think, then we'd get nowhere, since I'd just be posting ideas--and it's easy to refute those. Anyway, any discussion that's even tangentially related to sociology or psychology does in fact require a substantial degree of empirical evidence. Just saying, "People are better/worse/anything now!" doesn't mean anything.~QMark

Gosh guys, you're repeating what the previous generation criticized you guys about, and using those same arguments about the new generation.

No member of an older generation has criticized my role models or media choices, so my criticisms of other members of my generation are justified. lol.To those who say the rude kids are an exception: I've been around schoolkids almost my entire life, and in my experience most of them (not all, but most) use profanity (Oh no! I'm really against that whole idea that "bad words" mean anything--it's all just the idea behind their use, but I can tell that you're going to be steadfast in your idea, so I'll just leave this alone.), joke about adult topics ("Adult topics"--if I know what you mean, which I may not--have always been a part of the human experience, and I don't think that kids should have to not know or joke about some fact of nature. Joking about "adult topics" is simply a natural result of understanding them--and testing the boundaries of what one can say about them [i.e., being a kid or adolescent].), and play M-rated video games that I honestly don't think some of them are ready for. I think the peer pressure-ridden environment of school contributes to kids' behaviors, which makes me question how mature they'll become by the time they enter college. (People tend to mature with time; your argument apparently hinges on the idea that they won't.) (Remember, this is only from my experience.) In my Boy Scout troop, a good half of the troop doesn't quiet down when we're told to fall in; our Scout leaders have gotten really annoyed by that obstreperous behavior, and so have I. (Again, that's nothing new or interesting. Kids wanting to speak or spend time with friends and eschew authority is just part of being a teenager or kid.)To those who say maturation takes time: I agree with you, but I also agree with those who say parents need to look out more for their children. I've been compared to other kids as "sheltered", thanks to being homeschooled; but I don't particularly want to act the way other kids do.I don't see many positive culture trends in society, myself. It seems that people are growing used to curse words and greater (sometimes unnecessary) violence in media, parents letting their kids do whatever they want, selfishness, etc. -- I know such qualities were still present in the past, but the fact that they're still here isn't very positive in and of itself. (People just don't change. Individuals do. They see their childish mistakes and learn from them. Humanity isn't going to have some random enlightenment, and kids won't start acting like adults until you let them act like kids, learn, and mature.) I can't say much more about society's current trends without getting too political for BZPower (I think people are campaigning for equality in a lot of wrong ways [i must be really dense--I [i]am[/i] really tired--, because I don't really understand how you can want to say that you're against campaigning for equality.], but I won't say any more than that); until we start spreading beyond Earth and constructing the basis for an interstellar civilization, I won't be particularly impressed. also lol.One specific reply, to the debate about criticizing parents letting their children watch bad content being equal to criticizing media: That isn't true, because it's parents' responsibilities to raise children, not the people who create the media some of us see as violent. Just because Family Guy airs doesn't mean kids have to watch it, or parents have to let their children see it.EDIT:

I've also noticed that kids are maturing faster, even though they may not be able to handle it. I think that's the main problem. You see these 8 year olds thrust into the world with their phones and iPads and how do you expect them to react? They're kids, so naturally they'll pretend they're the center of the universe and you're some puny being who should submit to them.

I think it's less "maturing faster" and more "trying to mature faster", but otherwise I agree with this sentiment. But don't you want kids to mature faster? Am I misunderstanding everthing you've said? GAH, I'm going insane! (Okay that's it no more internet.)

Well I don't know about you guys but back when I was a kid I was perfectly normal!I was plenty mature and respectful.I mean if I wasn't mature and respectful I would've noticed, right?It's not like someone's perception of what counts as mature would change as they grow up, right?

And many lols of agreement were had. It's like I said before: No one springs into the world, Athena-like, perfectly mature and intelligent.~ BioGioEDIT: Wow, this needs more spacing. Edited January 31, 2012 by BioGio