🤣
this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
130 points (88.2% liked)
Gaming
19927 readers
256 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The 90s called and wanted their failed argument back.
The most agonizing debate is one you agree with, but not nearly to the extreme degree of the position you’re responding to.
There are some nuts out there that literally only buy a certain gun because “it’s in Call of Duty and it’s cool.” Worse, this demographic are not likely to be responsible gun owners - they are not buying for any perceived need. They don’t lock their guns correctly, or keep ammo separate. Those guns are the type most likely to be stolen for use in a mass shooting (or used by their owners). Arguably, those guns are designed to appeal to this exact crowd, not serve as a functional tool or hobby item.
That said, there are much better targets for gun legislation than “scary looking black guns” or Call of Duty’s choice of theme.
some of y'all definitely aren't reading the article. this isn't a "video games cause violence" thing. they are suing Activision and the gun manufacturer Daniel Defense for marketing a specific model of gun in Call of Duty, and maybe? that the Uvalde shooter used that same model of gun in the shooting. i dunno if there's merit to the argument, but like, categorically, this isn't the "video games cause violence" argument y'all seem to think it is. its about a gun manufacturer advertising their product in a video game.
So I did read the article, and.... I'm not understanding a word you are saying. The families are suing a video game company for a gun in their video game. Also the article is not at all making the emphasis that you are making between marketing a specific game and video games writ large (the article kind of speaks to both of those at the same time and isn't making any such distinction), so I don't know what you are talking about. As far as the article is concerned this has everything to do with the fact that the gun was in a video game, and even Activisions statement in response was to defend themselves from the idea that their video game is a thing that pushing people to violence. So even Activision understands the lawsuit as tying their video game to violence.
I'm not saying I agree with the logic of the suit, but I literally have no idea what you think in the article separates out video games from the particular model of gun because that is just not a thing the article does at all.
I’m not understanding a word you are saying
that makes two of us, i guess? i don't know what it is you're trying to say i was saying. to be more clear, i've been seeing a lot of talk in this thread arguing against the "video games cause violence" claim, as if that was what the lawsuit was about. i don't think the contents of the article present the families' lawsuit as primarily concerning that particular claim. i then attempted to describe what i believe their actual claim to be.
i've emphasized the words i think are relevant here:
These new lawsuits, one filed in California and the other in Texas, turn attention to the marketing and sale of the rifle used by the shooter. The California suit claims that 2021's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare featured the weapon, a Daniel Defense M4 V7, on a splash screen, and that playing the game led the teenager to research and then later purchase the gun hours after his 18th birthday.
that Call of Duty's simulation of recognizable guns makes Activision "the most prolific and effective marketer of assault weapons in the United States."
the fact that Activision and Meta are framing this as an extension of the "video games cause violence" thing is certainly what they've decided to do, but it seems to be talking past what the complaint and lawsuit are about, which is the marketing of a Daniel Defense M4 V7 in 2021's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare.
the reason i emphasized the gun model is that that seems, to me, to be the core feature of the case the families are trying to make. not that video games cause violence, but that Activision bears responsibility for the actions of the shooter because the shooter played their game, then proceeded to kill people with the specific model of gun that was being advertised in that game. the fact that the article takes the time to reference another case where the specific naming of a gun model lead to a sizable settlement, and says this
The notion that a game maker might be held liable for irresponsibly marketing a weapon, however, seems to be a new angle.
seems to support my reading. that isn't the same thing as saying video games make you violent, which is the claim a bunch of people in this thread seem to be shadowboxing.
i dunno, maybe there's some ambiguity there? are you arguing that the lawsuit is about rehashing the video games make you violent claim, or what? i genuinely don't know what you're trying to communicate to me. i hope this clarified my stance.
Every time I think we've moved passed this as an argument, it pops back up. They'll blame anything but those they should be holding accountable.
It seems like they're saying that it markets guns, not the typical argument that it makes kids violent. This argument seems less crazy to me.
So I'm not a fan of guns but, "marketing guns" is not per se illegal nor unique to video games. Yet the lawsuit separates out video games specifically. So I am not sure I agree that it's less crazy at the end of the day.
It's still not a convincing one though. If it wasn't this weapon used, it would have been another, regardless of where the perp first saw it. I'm not a fan of Activision, but this isn't on them.
Time is a flat circle.
If and only If this law suit leads to the banning of advertisements across all media, I'd be 100% for it. But that isn't the purpose, it's purpose is a cash grab for a law firm.
Gun makers in the USA cozying up to government law makers to keep gun laws loose especially with respect to export and control is the force driving gun violence in the USA. Follow the $$$.
view more: next ›