This is about all the hoopla over the years with people blaming everything but themselves for their own actions. Books, movies, the Internet, TV, comic books, music, music videos, videogames, and any other excuses people will use to shift the blame away from themselves.

Personally, I think it's a crock. If you do something you shouldn't, take the responsibility for it. Don't say that pornography made you a rapist and/or killer, or that a song made your kid kill him/herself, or that a videogame made you, or your kid, go on a shooting spree, or that a movie made you commit arson or theft or to lie out in the middle of a busy street, or that a book written by a crazed, powermad person, or a religious text, gives you the excuse to commit racial, religious or any other kind of murders. You thought to do it on your own, no matter what outside influences you may want to blame your behavior on. If you're already of a mind to do something criminal then you're gonna do it anyway. Blame yourself, not anyone or anything else.

I so agree!

I listen to a lot of heavy metal. A *lot*. I hang out with Goths (and other outcasts), and I sort of am Goth (I'm dark, morbid, etc.). I play violent video games. I occasionally play Dungeons & Dragons.

I am also totally unlike my peers.

Have I gone on a shooting rampage? No, and you know why? Because the media is full of [garbage].
Music/video games don't make a person violent. They give said person an excuse. That person was going to do it anyways; Quake II and Grand Theft Auto III give people another reason to not be held accountable for their actions.

Those Columbine kids listened to Marilyn Manson and Rammstein. Those two bands, of course, were blamed.

I like Manson, and Rammstein is one of my favorite bands. Yet I'm not a violent person. (side note: go here for Rammstein's press release on the matter.)

One of the recent shootings: the kid was a skater. Whole different genre of music there. So what could possibly be the problem?

A friend of mine has a T-shirt, that I've seen everywhere:

"If video games influenced kids, kids of the '80s would be running around a dark room, eating orbs of energy while listening to repetitive electronic music."

If music does cause you to kill someone, you are a weak-minded individual not worthy of the responsibilities of being human.

(A new topic for a rant, to go on my site...thanks, Mark!)

"If video games influenced kids, kids of the '80s would be running around a dark room, eating orbs of energy while listening to repetitive electronic music."

Um. Is this not called a rave? And do not a lot of twentysomethings, who were kids in the 80s, go to raves?

MarkN,
Yeah, especially since everyone knows the CIA's mind control sattelites can have their rays blocked by a foil lined hat!

I was especially appalled when John Grisham said Oliver Stone should've been held responsible for the murders committed by some people who claimed to have watched Natural Born Killers prior to committing them. I SO wanted to have been present when he said that so I could've responded, "Well, I read an article in Reader's Digest once about occurences of jury nullification in our court systems, and I just saw A Time to Kill. Should we hold you responsible for jury nullification?"

When you weight the number of criminals supposedly influenced by [fill in the medium] against ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE who enjoy that medium who DIDN'T commit crimes, you have to admit that, as an motivator, those media are pretty poor ones.

If a piece of music, a movie or a book can improve a person (and who would deny this?), why is it impossible that it could degrade them? I can't think of a single reason. By saying such things can have no ill effects, one is effectively saying they can have no good effects.

Frankly I think going all over TV and Radio and the Net and saying that none of these kids who murdered their peers are responsible for their actions, doesn't this send the message that, if you're under 18 you can do whatever you want and everyone will blame everyone else?

BTW, even though Bill Owens and others protested Manson's first Colorado concert after Columbine (two eyars later I might add, that shock rocker has more decency than the NRA who came to town only a few MONTHS after) by claiming what CC just said, it's been proven by way of Klebold and Harris' diaries that they HATED Manson because he was 'too tame.'

Dwimble--

It can move a person, but it cannot compel you to murder.

Why?

If you kill someone just because some idiot with a guitar told you to, you need to be removed from the gene pool. Promptly.

As I've said, I listen to a *lot* of heavy metal, and I play first-person shooter games, on occasion.

Have I killed anyone? No, because the media is full of it.

No, it's not like saying it "can have no good effects." A person can be moved by something; even though I'm iffy on religion, I find "Ave Maria" moving.

Do I get the urge to kill someone after listening to Rammstein, Metallica, Manson, or Prodigy? No.

Why? Because I know right from wrong.

Yes, all kinds of influences can persuade us to change. To change our minds, to change our attitudes, to change our actions.

But only those influences that can be proven to make major changes (mostly mind-altering drugs, but also deliberate incitement in a particularly volatile situation, etc.) can be blamed or banned.

The key is that the influence must be obviously, or provably, directly responsible.

Still, if there is a correlation between an increase in a "bad influence"and the increase in bad behavior, there is nothing wrong in doing everything possible within the law to influence the person or persons responsible for the "bad influence" to take steps to reduce that "bad inluence."

I know that I seem to be waffling here, trying to agree with both sides, but although I believe that one's morals must influence one's politics, there is a higher moral stake in curbing government from overstepping its bounds in this case (when there is no evidence that the bad influence is [to use a legal term] the proximate cause of the bad deed). The deeds themselves are illegal, and there are non-governmental remedies for reducing the "bad influence." Yes government intervention would be more effective, but it would also be wrong.

Klebold & Harris's parents never taught them right from wrong.

They spent time in their basements MAKING BOMBS and PLAYING WITH SWORDS, and those parents did NOTHING???!!!

That morning, they went to school wearing trenchcoats, carrying Uzis.

What kind of parents WERE they?!!!!!???

How can one blame music, when there is parenting this bad involved?

>>Have I killed anyone? No, because the media is full of it<<

Then again, I'd *usually* like to kill someone... *whistles innocently*

BUT, that's because I, well, hate people.

I'd like to hurt...lessee..
Boy bands, barbie doll teeny singers, the customers at the theater I work for, etc.

They spent time in their basements ... PLAYING WITH SWORDS

What, pray tell, is wrong with that? Asking as a fencer (the world's worst ).

Big, sharp ones. The kind you kill people with, not an epee.

There is absolutely no way, no how whatsoever that any outside influences can make anyone do anything. No music, no lyrics, no printed material, no moving images, no statuary, no animals, nothing at all. Again, if you're of a mind to do the deed then you're gonna do it anyway most likely, even if you've never seen or heard (or heard of) that act depicted in any form elsewhere. You can listen to all the music, read all the literature, play all the computer and videogames and watch all the violent movies you like but not one of them will make you commit any acts that you normally otherwise wouldn't. Sure, you may get ideas from them, but they don't have any magical properties that suddenly turn you into some sort of criminal. Why some people can't see that, or choose not to, is beyond me.

I've seen tons of violent films, played a fair share of violent PC games (like I have been lately), and read some violent books but not a single one of them have made me want to go out and murder, or steal or set fires or done any number of other criminal acts, because I'm a stronger, better person than that, not some weakminded loser who can't face reality or blames society on their problems, or whatever their particular trip is.

CC:

Fencers practice with three differrent classes of swords. The epee is only one of them (Yes it's apparently the most commonly used , especially for practice [At least if movies and TV are to be believed -- I'm not a fencer myself.] But it's not the only one) And even an epee can be big and sharp and kill people

Besides, if you yourself are into fantasy games like D&D (which I believe you mentioned earlier) you almost certainly know some of "normal" people (neither fencers nor homicidal maniacs) who collect "fantasy" swords (which are big, heavy and wicked-looking) and even "play with them" when they are gaming.

There is absolutely no way, no how whatsoever that any outside influences can make anyone do anything. No music, no lyrics, no printed material, no moving images, no statuary, no animals, nothing at all. Again, if you're of a mind to do the deed then you're gonna do it anyway most likely, even if you've never seen or heard (or heard of) that act depicted in any form elsewhere. MarkN

I basically agree with this statement, except for the apparent implication that there is no influence. But the influence from any one source (other than those provably "undue influences") is almost certainly too slight to pinpoint as a reason why someone chose to do or not to do something.

As much as CC "find(s) Ave Maria moving," she's still "iffy on religion."

A person tends to immerse himself/herself in those influences that reinforce his/her pre-existing attitudes. CC probably only listens to Ave Maria occassionally during December, but she listens to Marilyn Mason and Rammstein repeatedly every day of the year. She probably is more sympathetic to the one message than to the other. But she still makes her own decisions every day. She is not a robot programmed by Heavy Metal music.

Still, if people in her town were somehow convinced that the very real influence that Heavy Metal exerts on CC and others in her peer group has become "undue," they are free to approach the radio stations, music stores, and record companies and attempt to convince them of that "fact" by all legal means available to private citizens and citizen groups. They should not try to co-opt the law, however unless and until the "danger" is proven.

Dwimble, I don't think it's impossible for media to have some influence on people--it's naive to say it has none. It is the directness, the neatness and the singularity of the correlation that some of these critics imply that I find unrealistic.

Of course media have influence. It is the EXTENT and NATURE of that influence that is in question. The people who rant about the media want to blame ONLY the media, and want to ignore the fact that the manner in which a person's personality, character and moral center forms is contingent upon COUNTLESS different stimuli from different sources over the course of an entire lifetime. They want to pretend instead that an act like Columbine can be directly traced to ONE game, movie or book, and isolate the person's exposure to that medium--even if it occupied a miniscule portion of that person's life--from ALL the other influences--and lack of influences in that person's life. It's an overly simplistic view of the way the people behave that ignores how the choices we make develop in our psyche.

Luigi --

Based on what Dwimble has written on some of the related boards this week, I don't feel that she (I got it right this time! ) was stating, or even implying, that the influence was strong enough to have a direct and provable influence. Her view is similar to yours and mine. She only brought up the point because Mark's CC's and your posts seemed to imply that there was no influence whatsoever.

[HUMOR]

Tom, how can we have a decent flamewar when you're going and being all reasonable, and mediating????

[/HUMOR]

Yes, I know, Tom. I wasn't implying that she was one of these people. I was merely opining on the nature of the influence. Perhaps I didn't read the thread as thoroughly as I normally do before jumping in. My bad.

Scott- He he

TomM: "A person tends to immerse himself/herself in those influences that reinforce his/her pre-existing attitudes. CC probably only listens to Ave Maria occassionally during December, but she listens to Marilyn Mason and Rammstein repeatedly every day of the year."

Actually, I listen to both every day. (Side note: God bless P2P software like Kazaa.

Sometimes it goes straight from "Ave Maria" right into Rammstein. It's...interesting, to say the least.

I find "Ave Maria" to be a beautiful piece of music; why listen to it at only a certain time of year?

Well, ok, I don't doubt that at least music may have some influence on a person's emotions. You know, that old "Music soothes the savage beast" thing, because it applies to people as well, who find some forms of music to be very relaxing. Just look at all the meditation tapes and CDs you can buy. I may not like religious song but some of the music itself is still very beautiful, especially when done right by someone with a beautiful enough voice to sing it. Ave Maria's one such song.

Anyway, what I was trying to say was that none of the examples I mentioned above can just physically grab hold of you and force you to commit this or that act. If you have a copy of Mein Kampf sitting in front of you, it's not gonna do anything but sit in front of you, till you pick it up and read it, toss it or burn it. It's not gonna make you turn into a Nazi. If you have an Ozzy music CD, tape or record sitting in front of you, it's just gonna sit in front of you till you put it into its appropriate device to play what's recorded on it. It's not gonna force ya to commit suicide or criminal acts or anything.

CC-

I apologize for assuming that you were a typical member of your peer group. I only used you, Ave Maria, and Rammstein as examples because you had already advanced them, but I was actually talking about the more general case.

Sometimes it goes straight from "Ave Maria" right into Rammstein. It's...interesting, to say the least.

And to think that when Disney first released Fantasia the juxtapostion of Night on Bald Mountain with Ave Maria was considered jarring.

You know, that old "Music soothes the savage beast" thing,

Nit: "Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast.

CC, you know that KaZaa contains spyware, don't you? If you're gonna use KaZaa do one of the following:

• Get AdAware (you should do this anyway), or
• Get KaZaa Lite.

I know, Scott. But thanks.

(Why did I expect to hear this from *you*? Hmm.) :p

(Note to rovers: I'm teasing him.)

TomM--
it's interesting, to say the least. Heheh..

(Why did I expect to hear this from *you*? Hmm.) :p

Because I'm either an all-around good guy, or a paranoid conspiracy theorist?

Or both?

Thanks, Tom. I knew it was one or the other. Besides, how many savage beasts have you heard of being soothed by music anyway?

Oh sure, MJ! Don't worry, I know that's not what *YOU* really think, it's just what *THEY* wanted you to say...

ScottN,

They don't want you to help us. Or do you help us because you know they want you to think that and helping us might get them to think you don't really know that it is all a ruse that they think they control. My head hurts.

from Yahoo! Radio

Interview with Rammstein drummer Christoph "Doom" Schneider:

LAUNCH: Rammstein was partially blamed for having an influence on the Colorado kids involved in the Columbine massacre--how do you feel about being implicated in this?

SCHNEIDER: Ya. We were very wondering about this this time, that it's possible in America that a band gets blamed for some stup!d people. I think music can't be responsible for something like this. These guys are responsible by themselves for what they have done. [speaks German to translator]

TRANSLATOR: Schneider says that he thinks music is more of a play on reality and not reality itself, and they should look for example more at the kids themselves--their backgrounds, their parents, what conditions they grew up in, what conditions they live in. Music is more removed from that.

If I tell you go to heck, you are still responsible for the journey.

I think it was ridiculous that they were investigating Andrea Yates' husband, to see if he had any responsibility in the murder of their five children, that SHE did.

\i(Note to rovers: I'm teasing him.) } -- CC

Note to Rovers: Not everyone likes Irish folk music.

(Sorry, CC, I had to.)

Well there's no denying that Rusty Yates WAS beyond a shadow of a doubt a NOT blameless @$$hole. I know that probably counts as ad hominem, but jeez look at the guy's track record! He KNEW that his wife had emotional problems, he KNEW that every smart shrink told him making her carry another baby would push her over the edge. He KNEW that the 'doctor' he took her next was a fanatical Christian like he was. He's as culpable for the deaths of those children as she is.

If poor judgment is a crime then we should have Capitol punishment. (Everyone in the Capitol should be punished.)

Dude: Sounds like Rusty Yates basically set his wife up, as he wanted more children, no matter what her mental condition. It was well documented that if she had more children, it would send her over the edge. Still, though, SHE was the one who drowned her five kids, even running after one who tried in vain to escape.

Adam: At no point did I she was without blame, and at no point did I say she shouldn't go to prison for what she did. I'm jsut saying there's more than enough blame to go around.

I highly recommend reading this article. It is extremely well thought-out and written.


Columbine: Whose Fault Is It?
By Marilyn Manson - Rolling Stone Issue 815 - June 24th, 1999

--It is sad to think that the first few people on earth needed no books, movies, games or music to inspire cold-blooded murder. The day that Cain bashed his brother Abel's brains in, the only motivation he needed was his own human disposition to violence. Whether you interpret the Bible as literature, or as the final word of whatever God may be, Christianity has given us an image of death and sexuality that we have based our culture around. A half-naked man hangs in most homes and around our necks, and we have just taken that for granted all our lives. Is it a symbol of hope or hopelessness? The world's most famous murder-suicide was also the birth of the death icon - the blueprint for celebrity. Unfortunatly, for all of the inspiring morality, nowhere in the Gospels is intelligence praised as a virtue.

--A lot of people forget or never realize that I started my band as a criticism of these very issues of despair and hypocrisy. The name Marilyn Manson has never celebrated the sad fact that America puts killers on the cover of Time magazine, giving them as much notoriety as our favorite movie stars. From Jesse James to Charles Manson, the media, since their inception, have turned criminals into folk heroes. They just created two new ones when they plastered those disp----s Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris' pictures on the front of every newspaper. Don't be suprised if every kid who gets pushed around has two new idols.

--We applaud the creation of a bomb whose sole purpose is to destroy all of mankind, and we grow up watching the president's brains spattered all over Texas. Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised. Does anoyone think the Civil War was the least bit civil? If television had existed, you could be sure they would have been there to cover it. or maybe even to participate in it, like their violent car chase of Princess Di. Disguesting vultures looking for corpses, exploiting, f---ing, filming and serving it up for our hungry appetites in a gluttonous display of endless human stupidity.

--When it comes down to who's to blame for the high school murders in Littleton, Colorado, throw a stone and you'll hit someone who's guilty. We're the people who sit back and tolerate children owning guns. and we're the ones who tune in and watch the up-to-the-minute details of what they do with them. I think it's terrible when anyone dies, especially if it is someone you know and love. But what is more offensive is that when these tragedies happen, most people don't really care any more than they would about the season finale of Friends or The Real World. I was dumbfounded as I watched the media snake in, not missing a teardrop, interviewing the parents of dead children, televising the funerals. Then came the witch hunt.

--Man's greatest fear is chaos. It was unthinkable that these kids did not have a simple black-and-white reason for their actions. And so a scapegoat was needed. I remember hearing the initial reports from Littleton, that Harris and Klebold were wearing makeup and were dressed like Marilyn Mason, who they obviously must worship since they were dressed in black. Of course, speculations snowballed into making me the poster boy for everything that is bad in the world. These two idiots weren't wearing makeup, and they weren't dressed like me or goths. Since Middle America has not heard of the music they did listen to (KMFDM and Rammstein, among others) the media picked something they thought was similar. Responsible journalists have reported with less publicity that Harris and Klebold were not Marilyn Manson fans - that they even disliked my music. Even if they were fans, that gives them no excuse, nor does it mean that music is to blame. Did we look for James Huberty's inspiration when he gunned down people at McDonalds? What did Timothy McVeigh like to watch? What about David Koresh, Jim Jones? Do you think entertainment inspired Kip Kinkel, or should we blame the fact that his father bought him the guns he used in the Springfield, Oregon murder? What inspires Bill Clinton to blow people up in Kosovo? Was it something that Monica Lewinsky said to him? Isn't killing just killing, regardless if it's in Vietnam or Jonesboro, Arkansas? Why do we justify one, just because it seems to be for the right reasons? Should there ever be a right reason? If a kid is old enough to drive a car or buy a gun, isn't he old enough to be held personally responsible for what he does with his car or gun? Or if he's a teenager, should someone else be blamed because he isn't as enlightened as an eighteen-year-old?

--America loves to find an icon to hang its guilt on. But, admittedly, I have assumed the role of Antichrist; I am the Nineties voice of individuality, and people tend to associate anyone who looks and behaves differently with illegal or immoral activity. Deep down, most adults hate people who go against the grain. It's comical that people are naive enough to have forgotten Elvis, Jim Morrison and Ozzy so quickly. All of them were subjected to the same age-old arguments, scrutiny and prejudice. I wrote a song called "Lunchbox," and some journalists have interpreted it as a song about guns. Ironically, the song is about being picked on and fighting back with my Kiss lunch box, which I used as a weapon on the playground. In 1979, metal lunchboxes were banned because they were considered dangerous weapons in the hands of delinquents. I also wrote a song called "Get your Gunn." The title is spelled with two n's because the song was a reaction to the murder of Dr. David Gunn, who was killed in Florida by pro-life activists while I was living there. That was the ultimate hypocrisy I witnessed growing up; that these people killed someone in the name of being "pro-life." The somewhat positive messages of these songs are usually the ones that sensationalists misinterpret as promoting the very things I am decrying.

--Right now, everyone is thinking of how they can prevent things like Littleton. How do you prevent AIDS, world war, depression, car crashes? We live in a free country, but with that freedom there is a burden of personal repsonsibility. Rather than teaching a child what is moral and immoral, right and wrong, we first and foremost can establish what the laws that govern us are. You can always escape hell by not believing in it, but you cannot escape death and you cannot escape prison. It is no wonder that kids are growing up more cynical; they have a lot of information in front of them. They can see that they are living in a world that's made of b.s. In the past, there was always the idea that you could turn and run and start something better. But now America has become one big mall, and because of the Internet and all of the technology we have, there's nowhere to run. People are the same everywhere. Sometimes music, movies and books are the only things that let us feel like someone else feels like we do. I've always tried to let people know it's OK, or better, if you don't fit into the program. Use your imagination - if some geek from Ohio can become something, why can't anyone else with the willpower and creativity?

--I chose not to jump into the media frenzy and defend myself, though I was begged to be on every single TV show in existence. I didn't want to contribute to these fame-seeking journalists and opportunists looking to fill their churches or to get elected because of their self-righteous finger-pointing. They want to blame entertainment? Isn't religion the first real entertainment? People dress up in costumes, sing songs and dedicate themselves in eternal fandom. Everyone will agree that nothing was more entertaining that Clinton shooting off his p---k and then his bombs in true political form. And the news - that's obvious. So is entertainment to blame? I'd like the media commentators to ask themselves, because their coverage of the event was some of the most gruesom entertainment any of us have seen. I think that the National Rifle Association is far too powerful to take on, so most people choose Doom, The Basketball Diaries or yours truely. This kind of controversy does not help me sell records or tickets, and I wouldn't want it to. I'm a controversial artist, one who dares to have an opinion and bothers to create music and videos that challenge people's ideas in a world that is watered-down and hollow. In my work, I examine that America we live in, and I've always tried to show people that the devil we blame our atrocities on is really just each one of us. So don't expect the end of the world to come one day out of the blue - it's been happening every day for a long time.

Hannah, is there any way you could merely link to the articles in question?

Speaking for myself, I personally don't care what Marilyn Manson thinks, and I'd prefer to not have to scroll through a page or two of his drivel.

And besides, it's a courtesy to those on slower connections, or older computers.

Dumped Berry's post.

I'd recommend you point out you mean only her post of Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 01:06 am and not her personally.

BTW, perhaps you should reread her first line which allows an answer of "No, because..."

When someone does something to inconvenience you asking them to explain themselves is not rude.

Dumped Dude's message to MJ.

Speaking for myself, I personally don't care what Marilyn Manson thinks... - Machiko Jenkins

To be honest, if you truly didn't care, you would never have articulated this, nor labeled his thoughts drivel.

Speaking for myself, I found some of what Manson said in that article to be enlightening. I am one of those people who tend to dismiss him because I don't like his music and I find his personna to be odd. So I was pleasantly surprised to discover that there is some substance to him. So I thank Hannah for providing us with the information, teaching me something that I didn't already know.

And considering the influence he has (in that he is an artist with a large following, especially among our youth), I think dismissing everything he has to say is a mistake. I think it's more important to actually listen to what such a person has to say, before dismissing it as drivel. You may actually learn something as I just did.

Hannah, I enjoyed reading that essay. Thanks for posting it.

Good article, Hannah. I never cared for his music but I knew he was a pretty smart and articulate fella.

What for? MJ was being rude and I pointed it out! That's not ad hominem. It's like saying "Hey, you're being a jerk" to a jerk or "You cuss too much" to Brian Webber.

Dude, it was you who was being rude to MJ, thus the dumping. She wasn't being rude at all when she merely suggested if Hannah could post links to make it easier on those with slower connections or older computers.

Dude,

This was meant for you, everone else, sorry for the double post

I'd recommend you point out you mean only her post of Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 01:06 am and not her personally.

BTW, perhaps you should reread her first line which allows an answer of "No, because..."

When someone does something to inconvenience you asking them to explain themselves is not rude.

Dude: from the perspective of the Chief and the Roving Mods, telling anyone on this board that they are a jerk, no matter the context, is ad hominem.

I personally don't Dump posts referring to public figures because ad hominem in this context is defined as attacking people who you are debating with by commenting on their character, not on the content of their post.

I didn't see Dude's post, so I can't really comment on whether I would define it as an ad hominem attack. (Though I agree that calling anyone a jerk falls under that rule.)

However, I did find MJ's post to lack a certain... sensitivity to Hannah's post. If she had just simply stuck to the matter of lengthy articles, that would be fine. But she also editorialized on whether she cares about what Manson had to say (and thusly whether she cares about how Hannah feels about it). People call me on my bluntness at times, why should MJ (or anyone else) be immune?

I suppose the question is whether MJ herself was called rude or if Dude commented that her post was rude. The latter is debatable as to whether it signifies an ad hominem attack or not.

Darth,

There is a slight difference if someone e-mails and say, "Boy, that Berry is rude,” and posting in an open forum that Berry finds it easier to be rude. (Of course I'm different. I'd rather rudely respond to the post before it gets dumped.)

Also, no moderators keep you from thinking, "Gee that Berry is an insensitive jerk." (I think Morgan's mind reading ability is compromised.) Posting it, however, is a different story.

On the one hand, I can see how some might misconstrue the manner in which MJ phrased her comments as rudeness to Hannah, and I myself would've made the suggestion without referencing my feelings about Manson, since it isn't directly relevent to the issue of linking vs. posting in full to save space, but given that the two of them enjoy frequent chats on AIM and on friends, I'm guessing that it wasn't intended as rudeness, and if so, that Hannah will assume the same.

I do have a question for MJ, though: Do you disagree with what Manson said? (It seemed fairly reasonable.) Or did you call it drivel simply because of some prior disposition you had towards him?

I can't answer for MJ, but I personally would be inclined to pay the article a lot more attention if it weren't written by someone with a vested interest in not being blamed for the situation, as well as someone who *does* get blamed for an awful lot of situations.

What vested interest? He isn't to blame for the situation, and no one is suing him or anything, so it's not like he has anything at stake. I doubt his position would be any different if no one had ever mentioned him as a link to Columbine anyway.

Luigi Novi,

His vested interest is all the parents who will say to their teenagers, "Don't buy his music because Dylan a Kleb... Hey don't roll your eyes at me young man. That stuff is filth! And another thing (etc.)"

In short, he doesn't want his sales to skyrocket.

What vested interest? He isn't to blame for the situation, and no one is suing him or anything, so it's not like he has anything at stake.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't he one of about 2 dozen defendants in that case that some of the parents are bringing aginst people they see as a potential skapegoat/jackpot (including AOL-Time-Warner) for school shootings.

It sounds like we're on our way to the courts 21st Century courts mentioned in Encounter at Farpoint: "Guilty until proven innocent!"

So people being blamed (whether justly or unjustly) for crimes perpetrated by other people means we have to discount what they say in their defense? It's not like Manson went on every major network as part of a nationwide campaign to argue his case, like his attackers. He wrote an editorial column in a magazine whose focus is on the music industry. Sounds pretty reasonable to me, whatever your feeling about his music.

And one could argue the exact opposite: that Manson's attackers have a vested interest in blaming someone else for their own parental negligence.

When did I blame him for causing anything? I'm just saying, one has to realize where the message is coming from. This isn't Marilyn Manson, concerned citizen, writing. This is Marilyn Manson, rock idol who already has a reason to distrust these groups. He has a point, but I think the obvious bias on his part ought to be noted.

I was unaware that he was named in any suits. Thanks for informing me.

I may be wrong about him being named in a suit but even if he was not named Interscope Records (his label) was.

This isn't Marilyn Manson, concerned citizen, writing. This is Marilyn Manson, rock idol who already has a reason to distrust these groups.

Isn’t that the case with most editorials and opinion pieces? For example anything by Anna Courier or Rush Limbaugh isn’t coming from someone wanting to get the facts out. It is coming from people who has made millions from bashing liberals. Or if activist/film-maker Michael Moore releases something about politics it’s coming from a guy who’s made millions pushing a liberal agenda.

Yes, which is why one ought to be careful not to rely on op-eds for factual evidence.

But what was Manson essentially saying--that listening to his music doesn't automatically make someone a killer, which is simply a reasonable statement of truth,--or not. Whether that statement is true or not or agreeable or not should be weighed apart from what his interests are. The only "factual evidence" he offered was that Klebold and Harris were not fans of his, which was hardly the main thrust of his essay.

I didn't say or suggest that you blamed him for anything, Matthew. But you said that because he's blamed, you view what he says with skepticism. And that's hardly fair. Especially when you consider that the people blaming him also have a vested interest in directing the blame away from themselves.

And they have a vested interest in cashing in on the death's of their kids for a large payday.

But you said that because he's blamed, you view what he says with skepticism. And that's hardly fair. Especially when you consider that the people blaming him also have a vested interest in directing the blame away from themselves.

How is it not fair to view an ideologically biased article with skepticism? I treat the other side the same way!

Well, that's certainly more fair than what it seemed you originally suggested. Obviously you have to take the motivations of *anyone* giving *any* kind of opinion into account for *any* situation. But I think that's a far cry from dismissing what a person has to say simply because there *may* be other motives. And as Luigi said before, I doubt that Manson's opinions would have differed had he not been publicly blamed.

Darth,

you have to take the motivations of *anyone* giving *any* kind of opinion into account for *any* situation. - Darth Sarcasm

Sorry Darth, you are wrong. You do not have to question my motivations.

I didn't say "question."

Except the glass is an object that is compleatly at the mercy of whomever pushes on it. Humans have brains and free will to choose not to follow first impulses. It is this ability that lead me to not beat up a manager at work when he ticked me off, even though I wanted to throw him aginst the wall. The fact that he provoke me with his speech means nothing if I were to get arrested for assult.

I have to agree that music (or whatever) can and does have both positive and negative effects on individuals, and add that it does the same on groups. Ever been to a concert (any genre)? Most people "get into" the music being played, which can mean anything from having a good time swaying together & humming along to staging a riot. But to say that the music is the sole cause for the behavior is too simplistic. There are other factors involved: the condition of the venue (an open air concert in the park versus a cramped, overheated bar will yield entirely different results, though not necessarily dire in nature), the disposition of the individuals attending, the disposition of the performers, etc. History has shown that people do behave differently in groups than as individuals ("herd mentality," i guess?), and that sometimes overrides the sensibilities of the indiviuals within the group.
Getting back to the individual... there are also several factors that influence how an indiviual responds. Using myself and music as an example, I sometimes get angered when I hear a particular song or type of music, especially in public places where I am forced to listen to what someone considers "publicly acceptable" music. Part of it stems from my past (maybe the song reminds me of a bad event or something), my musical tastes, whether or not I got enough sleep and so on. But I make the conscious decision not to trash the store or hurt anyone. I don't let my emotions override my sense of what's right and wrong.
My point (sorry for going on so long to get to it) is that I am responsible for my actions, and act accordingly without trying to use outside forces as a scapegoat for bad behavior. Yes, those forces do influence my behavior, but they don't control it.

I agree Dark Messiah. (Warning: agreement leads to making fun of your position.)

We all know that music can influence people, be it violently or to other base actions.

Lusty songs always sway virgins. We must ban all daemon (Rock and Roll, Jazz, Romantic Classical, ballet [see {Amadeus} for proof of Franz Joseph banning it {I assume because it is inherently EVIL.}] take your pick). Music hath charms to sooth the savage breast or it can cause a woman to rip off her bodice and lustily mate with any man playing the (electric guitar, saxophone, viola, [choose one]).


In case I need to point out the sarcasm, .

However, while music can influence people, this does not mean that it always does, or that it influences everyone in the same way and to the same degree. There is a significant difference between influence and causation.

BTW, does anyone know any virgins that I can expose to wanton saxophone music?

Every so often the police shoot and kill someone in the act of committing a crime. It happened again recently. The guy had wounded four officers and one of them shot him dead. This was in San Antonio, on Friday Jan. 3.

Here's a link to the news story.

http://www.msnbc.com/local/kmol/D-E538E01E-A36E-4CDB-8963-C501AFF67526.asp


Now, I don't feel like taking sides in the death penalty debate, and I'm not criticizing the police one single bit. But this person got the death penalty without a trial, without a hearing, etc. Of course the police have an excuse.

There was a recent case where two teenage girls got raped, they tried to kill the guy and the police shot him dead. The girls weren't police officers but they still had an excuse. Please note, I am absolutely not criticizing them.

But what is said about this, by the people who are strenuously opposed to the death penalty? How much discussion is there, about these kinds of cases, in the death penalty debate?

I just felt like bringing up this issue and pointing out how it seems like self-defense is "an excuse." Or, defending someone else.

It seems like a worthwhile thing to mention in the death penalty debate.

Am I totally off base here?

Rick Walters,

You may be slightly off topic for this board. (Unless you provide me with virgins to sway to lusty licentiousness with demon saxophones.)

You do, however bring up a good question. (BTW, the rapist was not executed if we mean murdered by the state. The first example, however, fit.)

Well, I only found a few references for the phrase "death penalty" on this board, and I didn't feel like starting a whole new topic.

Sorry, no sexo--er, saxophones--

Rick,

Never mind the saxophones, just bring chicks! shaking his head and walking away when everyone brings young chickens.

*snaps fingers*

On topic, people!

What was the topic?

Hannah F.,

First, may I still call you CC. It is shorter to type.

We are discussing if music hath charms to soothe the savage breast and makes virginal women not responsible for loose tawdry behavior. (Hey, I'm for some of that saxophonal Spanish fly! [Heck, I'd even watch ballet if it'll make my date rip off her bodice.]))

Ever see that episode where Beavis and Butt-head get ahold of some Spanish Fly?

Slight digression here but I believe originally the Greek word translated as daemon or demon simply meant any supernatural spirit that wasn't a God or Goddess;in that context a demon could be either Good or Evil or even Neutral morally.

As far as music goes I believe it's rather Neutral on the whole and depends on how you personally respond to it.It can't make you do anything against your own moral or religious standards unless you subconsciously want to do it in the first,second and third places.