It's not a binary 'either or' proposition. Some people have a harder time separating fiction from reality than others. In addition, this fails to acknowledge that certain content is created with the express intent of radicalizing others. Both ISIS and far-right white nationalists have radicalization pipelines spread across the internet through various sites.
The vast majority of the peak schizophrenia cases are observed having a complete detachment from reality, for example the columbine diaries and the bjorn stalker showcase a total disconnect from societal standards and general interaction mechanics. That elliot roger kid was 100% delusional as transpiring from his recordings, a 4 year olds have a better grasp on reality. Context nor intent would help there, especially given that the former extracted much of the ideology by hilariously misrepresenting comic books. Would that become retroactively ban material?
And when you look at the spectrum of personalities most likely to enact acts of outrageous violence, it is most often those at the very end of human rationality. In other words proposing context regulations could very likely leave the outcome unchanged while only destroying art that gets misrepresented in the crossfire. This is what happens when you sling short term feelie-based kneejerk reaction changes for political points without understanding what the fuck you're talking about.
And before you go into "there is no misrepresentation", I can start the list of the Southern Poverty Law Center smears they enacted without any basis off singular bad google searches and lost to court for defamation, speaking of the US. So once again, data before conclusions. We can also talk about how we know absolutely nothing about social platforms algorithms and then wonder why reality clashes with the cutesy unicorn in our heads. Bringing evidence in your own very post, calling for the modern nazi boogeyman, a movement whose proclaimed leader has a fifth of my twitter followers does not instill much confidence about your judgement of what the priorities of humanity would be, as you specifically filter everything through your little partizan politics before literally anything, being pretty much the left version of alex jones.
Data, studies. That's the only thing that's gonna work unfortunately, as succulent as firing hot takes may initially seem to a partizan drone. We have nothing conducted on a large scale and modern regarding the effect of media. The only thing that's happened is the christian fundamentalists just became less relevant with their ban bitching so things just kept going forward without much resistance. That's not the same as having a dataset and creating entertain based off informed pointers, it's just the only opposition lost relevance. And every week, every time something happens you'll be stuck on this point arguing feelies versus feelies, getting nowhere.
Ultimately further disproving your pathetically superficial point, opinions on fiction like Starship troopers is completely divided, to this day, with people perpetually arguing if it were a political manifesto or a mocking of that idea. Game of Thrones often is discussed regarding misinterpreted sexism or empowerment, with one side saying it's awfully toxic and the other saying it's the most progressive female representation in a book in 50 years. Aside from those high-intensity cases, hardcore deconstructionists argue that any piece of art made during whatever dominant set of cultural values is a 100% manifesto drenched in those values, no matter the context or the political intent it had. What about those? So no, your solution sucks, whoever decides what is propaganda is likely going to be an idiot partizan about it, one way or another. Get the data in first. Demand for studies, not change. The change will naturally follow as numbers will make your case better over tears.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
people digest content differently. i played mgs and mortal kombat when i was 12-13 and i know many other kids who did and they are just fine. There also studies if i remember correctly that have reached the same conclusion where it has little to no effect. That is not to say that a kid with a different mindset would not react differently to such content.
lets be honest here though people for the most part in this thread rather just be outraged at the headline though? yes?
that being said we do live in a weird society where sexuality bothers us more than violence, which blows my mind.
That being said yes, parents if available should see how kids react to content and determine what they should and should not be exposed to when younger.
Lets forget that though, Nuance is dead and people rather troll and act mega offended on all sides of this issue before anything else.
That's my point. If we go by existing studies claiming violence in media has zero tangible effect on rational people, everyone should fight for superficial, comical, exaggerated, and distasteful representation of rape of all bizarre kinds because it would bring no harm and just open up the possibilities for art, being an easy net positive. That's obviously not the stance of most people, especially in the US rape is considered worse than death, curiously, and most outrages do stem from sexism in media on top of it, after racism. And again, the same would function with racism. We should allow comically racist art because entertainment has no tangible effect on people, apparently.
The reality is, those studies are superficial and the current outlook on the effect of media is largely emotional, not rational. Hence it is useless to use it to base anything off of other than your personal emotions.
like a 250 dollar kit back when DDR4 was Intel only
