Replies

How about Lord of the Rings?...I read the books, I saw the movies, and I’ve played the games. All three are quite violent.

I stand by my argument that books, movies, and video games each have different impacts on us. In two of the three, we are observers; while in the third we become active participants.

Scalia talks about "interactivity", and offers a lame quote about how "we certainly hope books are interactive!", i.e. drawing the reader into the story and the characters' lives. What a pathetic argument, intended only to minimize the participatory role-playing of video games.

That's one aspect of the discussion. The other is, when you play a role, is it a good or bad one? Role-playing is a very powerful tool, and can be helpful or harmful. "Sensitivity" trainers know this, which is why their brainwashing sessions have people pretend to be homosexuals and muslims and so forth, while others practice coddling them.

The reason this play-acting is so powerful is this: The mind MUST reconcile beliefs with behavior. And once you've done the behavior, the mind must either condemn it or justify it. If your behavior conflicts with your beliefs, it's easier to change your beliefs than condemn your behavior.

So if you believe that homosexuals ought to be shunned and ostracized, but you just got done play-acting this nicey-nice "tolerance" shtick in front of all your peers, it'll be that much easier to fall for the "sensitivity" bull.

That's the concept of "cognitive dissonance as a brainwashing tool" in a nutshell. Consider its role in video games, and I think you'll see how such games can easily be harmful if misused - or at the very least how much different they are from books and movies.