-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Penn Gillette defends violent media (and Call of Duty) on a talk show
- Thread starter GrizzNKev
- Start date
- Status
meltingparappa
Member
There's this infamous moment from his show, and Maher comes off quite terribly.
Pistols max out at 2 kills, don't you know?
dr3upmushroom
Banned
Why else do you think parents aren't vaccinating their kids? A lot of parents are vocal about it.
Angry Fork
Member
Wendy Williams is atrocious, stupid person. She's done and said so much dumb shit, she's basically a less relevant Tyra Banks.
Penn has good sides and bad like many libertarians. Great on 1st amendment, drug war, pacifism (at least in regards to government military), horrible on unregulated capitalism and pro-corporate everything.
Part of his problem is he's said he frames every question/solution as 'should this be resolved with more freedom? or less freedom?', and with that the only thing that matters is individual freedom even if it's at the expense of the society around them. Not being able to separate the 1st amendment from the 2nd and realize why one is essential and the other isn't is the main issue.
Penn has good sides and bad like many libertarians. Great on 1st amendment, drug war, pacifism (at least in regards to government military), horrible on unregulated capitalism and pro-corporate everything.
Part of his problem is he's said he frames every question/solution as 'should this be resolved with more freedom? or less freedom?', and with that the only thing that matters is individual freedom even if it's at the expense of the society around them. Not being able to separate the 1st amendment from the 2nd and realize why one is essential and the other isn't is the main issue.
Fantastical
Death Prophet
She said if he walked in with a handgun he had the potential to kill less people.
I think what dude is trying to say is, that it's much more complicated than saying "its hollywood's fault". I'm sure that influence from celebrities is there, but things like mysticism, distrust of science and our desire to pin our problems on the unknown all probably have some level of blame in the trend. Really, in the end it's just something that is hard to quantify - but shouldn't be reduced to something as simple as "blame person X".
Dude Abides
Banned
i dont think many of them do it because minor celebs tell them to. Is this the standard of proof Jilette fans like? Make an unsupported assertion and demand skeptics prove them wrong?
Hobbestetrician
Member
I don't like his "most people with guns don't shoot other people and most people with mental illness don't kill" argument for why those areas shouldn't be addressed. Should we wait until the majority of people start killing others before we do something, Penn? I get his argument that other areas lead to more child deaths but no one seems to care but that doesn't mean we should ignore this "anomaly".
And his "blame the killer, not society" doesn't quite cut it with me, either. The killer didn't exist in a vacuum. Games and media aren't to blame, though, don't think I think that. If Call of Duty was really that influential we would see a huge boost of people joining the military.
And his "blame the killer, not society" doesn't quite cut it with me, either. The killer didn't exist in a vacuum. Games and media aren't to blame, though, don't think I think that. If Call of Duty was really that influential we would see a huge boost of people joining the military.
Three reasons: He's promoting his new book, he's a firm defender of free speech, and he likes to debate with people he disagrees with.
dr3upmushroom
Banned
I don't want to speak for the guy, but I doubt he's saying it's all Hollywood's fault, seems to me that he's expressing disappointment that people who have the opportunity to spread a message aren't voicing one based on facts or that is helpful. Kind of like when he was explaining that the fact that there are more guns than people doesn't mean that everyone owns a gun and tacked on the "But you already understand this." Also the repeated "Let's not scare our children over a freak circumstance" idea.
Like I said, pretty sure he's faulting the media for being exploitative and creating huge, lingering stories about freak events that distort people's concept of how likely they are to occur, not for being the sole cause of the problem.
Fair enough
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
I recall Penn and Teller did an episode of Bullshit about "murder simulators training our chillin' to be killers". They basically had a kid who was allowed to play a lot of Call of Duty be introduced to real assault rifle firing range lessons. The kid decided he didn't like real guns, to say the least. (They even apologized on the air afterwards, for asking the kid to go through it.)
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
"More hugs, less call of duty"
*Crowd claps*
I don't know if I can finish this guys.
*Crowd claps*
I don't know if I can finish this guys.
dead souls
Member
It's nice that Jillette is on the right side here, but as someone who's seen every episode of Bullshit, I find the idea that his viewpoints are "always amazingly well reasoned" to be fucking ludicrous.
"These kids sit in their rooms and its just shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot..."
"Wait no, you cant suggest that"
"THATS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING LET ME FINISH! These kids just sit in their rooms and its shoot, shoot, shoot..."
Penn's viewpoints more often than not are very, very well reasoned. Bullshit is entertainment first and foremost and as intended is heavily biased to a certain viewpoint. Don't confuse the show with Penn's actual opinions.
"Wait no, you cant suggest that"
"THATS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING LET ME FINISH! These kids just sit in their rooms and its shoot, shoot, shoot..."
Penn's viewpoints more often than not are very, very well reasoned. Bullshit is entertainment first and foremost and as intended is heavily biased to a certain viewpoint. Don't confuse the show with Penn's actual opinions.
thesoapster
Member
Just reading about the video made me decide I'm better off not watching it. Some people...
apocalidiot
Banned
Jesus that video was awful. What a piece of shit TV show
She can get it. Dat body.
What time in the vid does it happen?
7:55 is when it starts.
I love how just after that, there's the one random woman who just blurts out "We have to stop blaming video games, stop blaming aspberger's and START BLAMING THE POLITICIANS".
It's like every comment on there is made just to see how much the audience will clap, whether it's relevant or not.
"If you have this kid with this aspberger's who has social problems and plays computer games all day he won't know the difference"
*applause*
"Do you even know people with aspberger's? Stop spreading misinformation"
*applause*
"Blame the politicians"
*applause*
If you're fine with one violent thing being censored you're fine with all violent things being censored.
Dude Abides
Banned
Maybe that's what he meant, and he would have clarified if called on it, but it's not what he said. He said kids are getting whooping cough because of show business.
You don't have to agree with everything a person says to respect them.
Synth_floyd
Banned
The gun culture needs to be changed. Banning guns won't do anything. There's already so many guns out there and people are paranoid about the "gummint stealing ma gunz!" Guns are part of American culture. Just like banning drugs doesn't end drug use or abuse, banning guns won't end gun use or abuse.
To Far Away Times
Member
Penn Jillette's stance on social issues is very close to my own. Dude totally gets the first amendment, social issues, and people's rights. Generally speaking, if you aren't harming anyone else you should be free to do as you please.
Disagree with him on the financial issues though.
Disagree with him on the financial issues though.
dr3upmushroom
Banned
To be fair it wasn't exactly a great atmosphere to get across a nuanced opinion. But yeah, he could have been more clear on that.
Nearly a quarter of parents in this study said that they placed some trust in celebrities like McCarthy in regards to vaccinations and autism.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/...xpert-a-quarter-of-parents-trust-celebrities/
I tried to find a monetary contribution by her but could not find a good source in my quick search.
CrunchyFrog
Member
The asperger's generalization was definitely out of line, especially with a condition so poorly understood by even educated professionals and doctors.
While I agree with Penn on a lot of the things he said, I don't agree with him on the "misplaced priorities" bit. He failed to mention why those "responsible" gun owners need assault weapons in the first place. Every argument I've heard on that front is tremendously flawed, but I won't go into them here. He says here it's a waste of time and energy, and mentions other more "pressing" issues. The problem with those issues is that they aren't nearly as easily solved as this one is, and the only reason gun legislation is so difficult is because gun-supporters MAKE it difficult. An assault weapons ban has the potential for practical and effective change and with very little legislative overhead, unlike the sweeping change in cultural consciousness which such "other" issues he mentioned may require. Not to say those other issues aren't important, but here we have a tangible route for real change.
Also, just because it isn't the leading cause of death doesn't mean we can't address it all the same, or that it isn't just as important as those other causes. To do so is to reduce the value of human life to mere numbers and equations on a spreadsheet. We've had giant military operations to bring back just a select small number of people from harm; human life is important whether it's hundreds or less than a dozen. We should be working to reduce ALL problems which lad to death and harm in our society, not just the ones with the biggest statistics. If we can reduce the number of annual deaths in this country by just those 20+ lives lost in Connecticut, then we have done a great deal indeed, and in this case an assault weapons ban or at least stricter regulation seems by all reasonable estimates a great place to start doing just that.
While I agree with Penn on a lot of the things he said, I don't agree with him on the "misplaced priorities" bit. He failed to mention why those "responsible" gun owners need assault weapons in the first place. Every argument I've heard on that front is tremendously flawed, but I won't go into them here. He says here it's a waste of time and energy, and mentions other more "pressing" issues. The problem with those issues is that they aren't nearly as easily solved as this one is, and the only reason gun legislation is so difficult is because gun-supporters MAKE it difficult. An assault weapons ban has the potential for practical and effective change and with very little legislative overhead, unlike the sweeping change in cultural consciousness which such "other" issues he mentioned may require. Not to say those other issues aren't important, but here we have a tangible route for real change.
Also, just because it isn't the leading cause of death doesn't mean we can't address it all the same, or that it isn't just as important as those other causes. To do so is to reduce the value of human life to mere numbers and equations on a spreadsheet. We've had giant military operations to bring back just a select small number of people from harm; human life is important whether it's hundreds or less than a dozen. We should be working to reduce ALL problems which lad to death and harm in our society, not just the ones with the biggest statistics. If we can reduce the number of annual deaths in this country by just those 20+ lives lost in Connecticut, then we have done a great deal indeed, and in this case an assault weapons ban or at least stricter regulation seems by all reasonable estimates a great place to start doing just that.
The crowd of that show reminds me of the crowd from this Family Guy clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOh-rpvjYg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOh-rpvjYg
dr3upmushroom
Banned
Kinda just contradicted yourself. If the issue were easy to solve it would have been long ago. Kind of odd to say "This is an easy debate, if only the other side would shit up!", no?
As far as Penn's explanation as to why people need to own assault weapons, I think he'd repeat that an enormous percentage of assault weapon owners never murder anyone and that if they want one the government shouldn't be allowed to deny them or even question it.
As far as the prioritization thing, the fact of the matter is that there's only so many hours in the day, and so many years in one's life. I'm not trying to call you out to try to embarrass or troll you, but how many different cause are you personally actively contributing to? Some prioritization of issues is necessary, and though it's easy to pull the whole "You can't make humans figures on a spreadsheet!" and draw comparisons to Stalin or whatever, it seems obvious that problems actually killing more people should be resolved, studied, or considered before less deadly or less feasibly solvable ones."
Without Penn Jillette there the panel would sound like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkt2hEe-kbU
CrunchyFrog
Member
I don't doubt that there are reasonable assault weapons owners out there. The problem with the case in connecticut is that the responsibility of the gun owner was irrelevant, as the perpetrator wasn't a gun owner at all. One could argue that the mother was being irresponsible for leaving the guns in such an unprotected area where the perpetrator had access, but even then an argument for at least increased gun regulation is justified. Also, I don't believe the argument that "It isn't hurting anyone" is a justifiable excuse for not regulating it. For one, as I demonstrated above, the mother never intended to hurt anyone and yet was still at least partially responsible for if not simply the occurrence of these deaths than at the very least the large number of deaths. Maybe she left those guns out by accident, as humans are prone to do, but all it took was that one accident to give that man the opportunity he had to take so may lives. No human being is an island. In one way or another all our actions affect the world as a whole whether we realize it or not. Other than his argument of "they're not hurting anyone" I saw no positive arguments for the merits of assault weapons ownership. Thus, my only conclusion based on these arguments is that it is a freedom that society would more than likely benefit from living without.
Thus, going from my above argument, gun law, or rather the lack thereof, exists only to satisfy those who clamor for it, who appear to be a small yet vocal and influential minority. It should be easy to bypass the opinions of this minority, but unfortunately these individuals have entrenched themselves in a number of high ranking positions in government. It is these people blocking legislation which make this problem seem as unsolvable as it is today. However, the physical act of passing legislation takes far less time than the amount of education and paradigm shift in culture on a widespread individual level required to solve a problem like racism or such. When I speak of difficulty, I mean that the difficulty in solving the gun control problem is mostly artificial as opposed to other societal issues.
I suppose where we differ opinion is on the real amount of time and energy required to solve said problems. Experience has lead me to believe that this is at least greatly mitigated by a single piece of legislation, one which was in fact already in place as recently as 8 years ago, and since which gun crime in this country has risen significantly. I see no reason why we can't tackle this one in concert with the rest of society's problems, which I think are far grander in scale and have far less short term benefits.
Dude Abides
Banned
Yep, it is hard to make a nuanced argument in that forum. But if we're going to blast the other panelists for dumb unsupported statements we shouldn't spare Penn.
That survey simply finds that generally 24% of parents put "some" faith in what celebrities say wrt vaccines. That finding isn't nearly strong enough to justify Penn's strong statement.
Dark Ninja
Member
I saw this the other day. Am i the only one who thought he was messing with them and just making fun of them. Their arguments are some of the worst.
Ugh.. I was cringing the whole time listening to these women talk. They're supposed to be well educated (supposedly, I'm not familiar with them), but they sputter out pure trash out of their mouth. They should know the difference between a "machine gun," assault rifle, and a semiautomatic rifle.
But that's not really the point. They were throwing shit at a wall, and seeing what sticks and trying to find whatever scapegoat they could find. You could tell that whenever Penn spoke, it went through one ear and out the other.
I don't always agree with Penn's views either, but for one he doesn't jump to conclusions, especially when there's no evidence.
But that's not really the point. They were throwing shit at a wall, and seeing what sticks and trying to find whatever scapegoat they could find. You could tell that whenever Penn spoke, it went through one ear and out the other.
I don't always agree with Penn's views either, but for one he doesn't jump to conclusions, especially when there's no evidence.
backflip10019
Member
Penn is the only one who has an iota of sense in that video.
- Status