Grooming of UK jihadis, do violent computer games play a part?

[LeMaquis]

Grooming of UK jihadis, do violent computer games play a part?

 

Definitely. I also think playing Hide And Seek can help them improve their ability to resist arrest and those walks to the mosque will keep them fit enough to outrun drone strikes.

[discodown]

You know what games I really liked over the last few years?

 

Batman Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. Great games. You play as Batman and you fight and do puzzles and figure stuff out and hide in the shadows and use stealth attacks and take on the supervillains and all kinds of stuff.

 

Know what I didn't do? Become a billionaire vigilante dressed as a huge bat with improbable themed vehicles and weapons.

 

Do you know why? Because they are games. And games aren't life

[ronthenekred]

That's not worth noting at all.

Whenever there's a claim, proposal, theory put forward, the onus of proof is on the one who makes the claim. It's not anyone's duty to prove their idea wrong.

 

It's like saying nobody has proved that unicorns don't exist.

 

In a previous thread and as a comparison, Mr Smith advocated that paedophilia was the result of online child porn, and paedophiles should be recognized as victims, with emphasis on rehabilitation within the communities they preyed upon. Maybe when all those "jihadis" return from the East we should plough millions into making them watch flower arranging videos in order to ween them off their violent gaming addiction as a form of therapy, within the community.

 

Do the majority of our armed forces join because they've played "Call of Duty" as some form of reality? I doubt it. Anyway, even if they did they're in for a hell of a shock.

[L00b]

In a previous thread and as a comparison, Mr Smith advocated that paedophilia was the result of online child porn, and paedophiles should be recognized as victims, with emphasis on rehabilitation within the communities they preyed upon. Maybe when all those "jihadis" return from the East we should plough millions into making them watch flower arranging videos in order to ween them off their violent gaming addiction as a form of therapy, within the community.

The latest news is that they're pretty unlikely to, as ISIS has reportedly interned many of those who expressed disillusionment and a wish to return, and branded them as "traitors". That sounds quite 'final', if you catch my drift.

Do the majority of our armed forces join because they've played "Call of Duty" as some form of reality? I doubt it. Anyway, even if they did they're in for a hell of a shock.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, infantry combat simulators have been developed for, and used for training by, the Army in years gone by. And adapted as videogames (or reciprocally). Operation Flashpoint by Bohemia Interactive was one, there are several others. It's worth noting that these are very far removed from the simplistic, 'arcade-like' gameplay of Call of Duty, though. And none of it could ever begin to replace physical combat training/manoeuvres.

[firemanbob]

That's not worth noting at all.

Whenever there's a claim, proposal, theory put forward, the onus of proof is on the one who makes the claim. It's not anyone's duty to prove their idea wrong.

 

It's like saying nobody has proved that unicorns don't exist.

 

Lacking the ability to prove that a claim, proposal, theory is correct, isn't evidence that it is incorrect.

 

Joe blogs might kill someone to find out if the real thing is better that his computer game. Proving that the game caused him to kill would be impossible but so would proving that he wouldn't have killed the game didn't exist.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2014 at 12:25 ----------

 

Without diving into semantics or philosophy of science too much, it is the 'increases' that is highly tenuous. There is simply no way to demonstrate that outside of a clinical setting. Also, there is no research into whether the opposite is true, ie. playing violent games REDUCES aggressive behaviour. I play when I am angry, it acts as a valve, I'd wager that is the case for the vast majority of gamers.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they do both, in the majority of people they an harmless outlet for a fantasy that involves killing people, in others they may well contribute to their violent tendencies and push them to the point of killing someone. I doubt that a single event in a persons life would be the only cause of them killing someone, its more likley a combination of many factors over many years and playing violent games could be one of those factors.

[Cyclone]

Lacking the ability to prove that a claim, proposal, theory is correct, isn't evidence that it is incorrect.

I propose that it's goblins that are radicalising people.

 

You can't find any evidence to disprove this theory, so does that mean that we should take it seriously?

 

Joe blogs might kill someone to find out if the real thing is better that his computer game. Proving that the game caused him to kill would be impossible but so would proving that he wouldn't have killed the game didn't exist.

There's no evidence that this happens though, so for the moment, lets go with the working assumption that things that lack evidence, don't happen/exist. Otherwise you have to give credence to every daft idea that someone suggests.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they do both, in the majority of people they an harmless outlet for a fantasy that involves killing people, in others they may well contribute to their violent tendencies and push them to the point of killing someone. I doubt that a single event in a persons life would be the only cause of them killing someone, its more likley a combination of many factors over many years and playing violent games could be one of those factors.

 

It could be, but studies so far have failed to show that association. So lets assume that it's not.

[RootsBooster]

Lacking the ability to prove that a claim, proposal, theory is correct, isn't evidence that it is incorrect.

Who's saying that it is?

You could say that lacking the ability to prove that unicorns exist, isn't proof that unicorns don't exist.

It's pointless though.

 

The simple fact is that if someone thinks X is the cause of Y, it's up to them to prove it.

 

Joe blogs might kill someone to find out if the real thing is better that his computer game. Proving that the game caused him to kill would be impossible but so would proving that he wouldn't have killed the game didn't exist.

What would be the reason to suspect the game in the first place?

[Cyclone]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, infantry combat simulators have been developed for, and used for training by, the Army in years gone by. And adapted as videogames (or reciprocally). Operation Flashpoint by Bohemia Interactive was one, there are several others. It's worth noting that these are very far removed from the simplistic, 'arcade-like' gameplay of Call of Duty, though. And none of it could ever begin to replace physical combat training/manoeuvres.

 

The fact that 'games' can be used for training, doesn't suggest in any way that games cause violent behaviour.

[barleycorn]

I'll just put these here, interesting reading.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/weekinreview/10kershaw.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/11/terrorism.aspx

 

jb

[tzijlstra]

Going to put this brain wave out here, in response to Barleycorn's articles (indeed interesting).

 

Yesterday I saw a video of a few Dutch jihadists in Syria. They were angry young Moroccans, born in the Netherlands, who have felt alienated with the way they were treated in the Netherlands due to their ethnicity.

 

They became terrorists due to their disenfranchisement with society AND (and this is the theory) because they are increasingly aware of what is going on in a part of their world they consider home or at least similar in culture. They are increasingly aware of that due to the internet.

 

Here is the other side to the coin: For centuries (and well documented) young men have gone and joined mercenary bands. One Frisian legend talks of a boy who joined the Swiss Guard (protecting the Pope) and built up a reputation as one of the most fearsome mercenaries of his age. In the 14th century.

 

Could it not just be that these men seek adventure and are using Jihad as a means to do so? For centuries Islam has used the Jihadist battlecry to get young men to line up behind the standard.

 

Putting the two together you can speak of a newish phenomena, in that these men can actually join the mercenaries a lot easier than they ever could before all over the world.