Letter: Simplistic Blaming of Video Games

To the Editor:

In her Dec. 28 letter (“Ingredients of Civic Terrorism”), Julia Harris wrote about Activism-Blizzard’s Call of Duty video games and other first-person shooter games. She also mentions other media, including television and movies, as sources of domestic terrorism.

As a young male and a long-time gamer, I’d like to offer my opinion. These games do not foster violence; in fact, they are a way to lower violence. To someone who has never played or has only watched someone else play, these games would seem at first glance to be all about violence and bloodshed. Not so, as many are based around well-written stories and choices. In a game such as Bioshock, for example, the choices are quite stark — do you save or do you sacrifice? Nevertheless, in other games such as Call of Duty, the main objective isn’t necessarily to “kill-kill-kill,” but to achieve some sort of objective.

If someone wishes to do research on “violent” video games, it would serve them well to actually try them out, instead of boiling down a whole form of entertainment to “civic terrorism.” This is offensive, not only to those who enjoy them, but also to those who suffered losses in Newtown or Aurora. There’s a term for it: scapegoating.

Samuel Whitaker



Letter: The Ingredients of Civic Terrorism

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

To the Editor: At the memorial service for the latest victims of mass murder, President Obama said that a society must care for its children, and “if we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right.” We control our society by our laws, but more importantly by our purchasing power. Murder is a top seller, and our society cannot …