Books surely do have a place, but they do lack the sheer graphic imagery.
We had a serial killer in australia who wrote a book about a serial killer and became more and more obsessed with the character until she started emulating the protagonist.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Jun 14 2018 10:04pm

You think I am arguing effective communication when I'm talking a out people being disconnected.

Were not taking about an earnings call.

Thing is, people aren't disconnected just because they're not looking at the other person.

Again, the research so far has shown that our culture of constant interconnectedness through the internet and our phones has produced much better social skills than previous generations. One of those things is that our generation doesn't rely on eye contact and body language nearly as much because of this.



There were plenty who didn't though.

Maybe books or video games have triggered a few people, but that's a far-flung conclusion from the argument you were making before.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 14 2018 10:17pm

Is this true? But not all forms of communication right? I'm in the mid 20s and I know how much social anxiety people in my age group get about talking on the phone and I remember in my area we were right around the time everyone had a cellphone in highschool. Can't imagine how the iphone and texting masters that soon followed us.

The sheer amount of communication we do is possibly a very good thing, but not all communication is the part of the same skillset.




Don't people with issues communicating avoid eye contact? Predators like Harvey Weinstein would always look people straight in the eyes and never break eye contact, it unnerves people. Or is this more of a self-esteem thing?



I'll look into the research, I'm interested. I hadn't thought about it much. Also, if we're so good at communicating how come people on discussion forums still put words in other's mouth and misinterpret arguments daily? Checkmate atheists

This post was edited by Helloween7 on Jun 14 2018 10:29pm

What argument did i make?

You seemed to be trying to connect the increase in school shootings with the general idea that violent media is bad for most kids.

Kind of muddled though, because you switched between "bad for kids to have exposure to violent media" to "bad because there's a very small subset that might get triggered to do violence by violent media".

So some kind of clarification on what you think would be useful.

Someone with social anxiety, I always feel it's way easier without making eye contact tbh, lol. Just me though

Having anxiety doesn't mean you have poor social skills, although it could lead you to have poor social skills if you don't socialize as a result of the anxiety.

It doesn't have to be bad for "most kids" in a nation of 300 million with ready access to guns, if it was bad for one in 250,000 it would be enough to keep the murders coming.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Jun 15 2018 03:16am

anything else we should ban in case .000004% of the population has a negative response to it?