Momo is Still Not Real (But Memes Are)

D&D is no stranger to moral panics, and there's a new boogeyman taking the place of demons in the 80s: Momo, a fake picture of a fake sculpture about a fake trend.

D&D is no stranger to moral panics, and there's a new boogeyman taking the place of demons in the 80s: Momo, a fake picture of a fake sculpture about a fake trend.


Moral panics can arise from a popular trend that is unique to children and is foreign to some adults. Sociologist Stanley Cohen outlined the social theory of moral panic in his 1972 book titled Folk Devils and Moral Panics. It proceeds through five stages, beginning with a perceived threat to social norms; news media coverage; widespread public concern; authorities responding; and actions that result. This is precisely what happened with Dungeons & Dragons.
[h=3]Dungeons and...D'oh![/h]Joseph P. Laycock lays out what happened in the 80s with D&D in Dangerous Games: What the Moral Panic over Role-Playing Games Says about Play, Religion, and Imagined Worlds:

Anyone who was aware of fantasy role-playing games in the 1980s and 1990s was equally aware of claims that these games were socially, medically, and spiritually dangerous. A coalition of moral entrepreneurs that included evangelical ministers, psychologists, and law enforcement agents claimed that players ran a serious risk of mental illness as they gradually lost their ability to discern fantasy from reality. It was also claimed that role-playing games led players to commit violent crimes, including suicide and homicide, and to the practice of witchcraft and Satanism. In North America, the United Kingdom, and Australia, activists mobilized against these games. Several school districts and colleges banned gaming clubs and removed gaming books from their libraries. In the United States, activists petitioned federal agencies to require caution labels on gaming materials, warning that playing them could lead to insanity and death. Police held seminars on “occult crime” in which self-appointed experts discussed the connection between role-playing games and an alleged network of criminal Satanists. Dozens of accused criminals attempted the “D& D defense,” claiming that they were not responsible for their actions but were actually the victims of a mind-warping game.

There were several factors that led to D&D's moral panic, ranging from the disappearance of Dallas Egbert III while supposedly playing a LARP in the steam tunnels beneath Michigan State University )and the subsequent dramatic retelling in Mazes & Monsters) to a game called to task for straddling the line between adults and children. We discussed previously how D&D's target audience was slowly defined not by its creators (who were more interested in tabletop wargamers) but by market forces, with the Eric J. Holmes Basic set creating a curious dichotomy of younger players who eventually would graduate from Basic to Advanced...and their parents weren't happy with what they saw. Art & Arcana explains:

In no time flat, new allegations emerged, often driven by a casual perusal of the imagery: D&D was a clandestine recruitment vehicle for Satan worship and witch covens. TSR did little to calm these concerns when it unveiled another AD&D hardcover core book, the 1980 Deities & Demigods cyclopedia—a revision of the 1976 release Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes, but this time with all new artwork instead of the mostly public domain medieval header pieces and ornamental designs that had been used in the work previously. It contained a mix of sections nominally based on historical beliefs as well as pantheons of gods and godlings drawn from fantasy fiction.

Art & Arcana succinctly demonstrates what a "casual perusal" might look to a parent flipping through the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual (above). All this added up to a moral panic in which the media breathlessly reported the threat of children being corrupted by the game, police offered warnings, and worried parents blocked access. If this sounds familiar, it's because it's happening again with a modern twist.
[h=3]You Again?[/h]We've already discussed Momo, a photo of a disturbing-looking sculpture that encourages children to commit suicide. She's back again, this time attracting hundreds of thousands of views on Facebook, dominating the news, and even showing up in supposed Peppa Pig videos on YouTube aimed at children. It wasn't real then, and the Guardian explains it's not real now:

Child safety campaigners say the story has spread due to legitimate concerns about online child safety, the sharing of unverified material on local Facebook groups, and official comments from British police forces and schools which are based on little hard evidence. While some concerned members of the public have rushed to share posts warning of the suicide risk, there are fears that they have exacerbated the situation by scaring children and spreading the images and the association with self-harm.

What changed to make Momo popular again?

Although the Momo challenge has been circulating on social media and among schoolchildren in various forms since last year, the recent coverage appears to have started with a single warning posted by a mother on a Facebook group for residents of Westhoughton, a small Lancashire town on the edge of Bolton. This post, based on an anecdote she had heard from her son at school, went viral before being picked up by her local newspaper and then covered by outlets from around the world.

This in turn propagated in the tabloids, led to celebrities chiming in (which created more headlines), and police and schools issuing formal warnings (which led to yet more headlines). YouTube says the claims are false:

After much review, we’ve seen no recent evidence of videos promoting the Momo Challenge on YouTube. Videos encouraging harmful and dangerous challenges are clearly against our policies, the Momo challenge included. Despite press reports of this challenge surfacing, we haven’t had any recent links flagged or shared with us from YouTube that violate our Community Guidelines.​

Snopes agrees. And yet Momo persists despite evidence to the contrary. It's entirely possible children are now being exposed to Momo not due to a pernicious Internet monster, but because the media has plastered her face everywhere. Like parents flipping through the Monster Manual or Deities & Demigods, all it takes is one picture of Momo next to a kid's video to propagate parental fears:

It’s important to note that we do allow creators to discuss, report, or educate people on the Momo challenge/character on YouTube. We’ve seen screenshots of videos and/or thumbnails with this character in them. To clarify, it is not against our policies to include the image of the Momo character on YouTube; that being said, this image is not allowed on the YouTube Kids app and we’re putting safeguards in place to exclude it from content on YouTube Kids.​

The rise of streaming video has its benefits, as D&D can attest. That's not to say that the threat of self-harm or of children being upset by pernicious Internet videos isn't a concern. But like anything else, parents should exercise judicious restraint over what their kids do by educating themselves before blocking YouTube...or throwing out their D&D books.

Mike "Talien" Tresca is a freelance game columnist, author, communicator, and a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to http://amazon.com. You can follow him at Patreon.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca


log in or register to remove this ad

And the whole, "Once you're a parent, you'll understand why you might be stupid" shouldn't cut it. If you lived through it (as I did) it should make you more cognizant of not repeating those mistakes, not more empathetic.

Your statement rests on the assumption that being empathetic makes a person more likely to repeat the mistakes of those with whom he/she empathizes, but I would question that assumption. I believe that empathy actually helps a person to avoid repeating the mistakes of others by giving a more well-rounded understanding of how those mistakes were made in the first place.

In other words, practicing empathy can make a person more resolved to (and capable of) avoiding the mistakes of others, not less.
 


Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
The only Momo anyone should care about is the one from the novel.

Nah. There are other Momos that matter:

1) http://www.letsfindmomo.com
81FmrntgR6L.jpg


2)
[video=youtube;7tdUCk9pLPw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tdUCk9pLPw[/video]
 

Sure.

Where is the empathy for the actual victims of the moral panic? Can we at least start with that?

Is it too much to ask that, at a bare minimum, we do the following as general rule:


1. Have empathy for the victims of the Spanish Inquisition.

2. Understand why the Spanish Inquisition happened, so it doesn't happen again.

3. Empathize with Tomás de Torquemada.


It shouldn't be that hard, right? There seems to be this desire to skip steps one and two. This isn't one of those "debatable" issues; this was falsehoods spread that hurt people.

(For the record- I am not more inclined to not repeat the mistakes of that moral panic because I empathize with, inter alia, Patricia Pulling; instead, I am inclined to not repeat those mistakes because I have seen the harm done when people uncritically pass on falsehood and lies)

Your argument that any discussion shouldn't skip steps or must start at a specific point would be valid if we were writing books and book reviews, because the assumption in that context is that an author is writing a complete and definitive exploration of the topic. But these are not books, they're forum posts. Therefore, any assumption you make about my opinion on anything I haven't said is uninformed.

But since you bring it up, let me state for the record that I have empathy for the victims of the moral panic and have no problem saying so. After all, I was there too. But that wasn't relevant to the points I was making earlier, so I didn't spend time writing about it, and any assumption based on my silence was another good example of why arguments on the Internet are usually only 20% about the topic at hand, and 80% about underlying assumptions.
 


billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Thank you for that well-articulated explanation of the perspective of some parents and religious leaders in the 1980s. I also experienced everything you write about as a teenager in the 80s; in college, in fact, I had to formally petition and argue for the right to include D&D as part of a school-sanctioned gaming club. But as a parent today, I have a more nuanced and forgiving understanding of the situation.

I thought it was obvious that you weren't arguing for the correctness of the 1980s moral panic, but rather for some level of understanding of (and sympathy for) the people involved. You accomplished that goal well. It makes me sad that some people don't understand the difference between showing empathy and showing agreement.

Speaking as a parent of two kids who are involved in gaming, I have absolutely no more forgiving of the situation than I did in the 1980s. In fact, I think my attitude has hardened over the years because the people involved in the moral panic took an easy, lazy path toward ignorant condemnation rather than taking a nuanced and reasoned approach based on knowledge and understanding. While I may have empathy for Pat Pulling over her son Irving's suicide, I have none for her over her response in forming BADD and spreading disinformation about gaming
 

Uller

Adventurer
I think some people here forget just how bad and stupid and unsupported the 80s moral panicS (notice the plural) were.

And the whole, "Once you're a parent, you'll understand why you might be stupid" shouldn't cut it. If you lived through it (as I did) it should make you more cognizant of not repeating those mistakes, not more empathetic.

I lived through it. I am also a parent of a 7, 17 and 20 year old. I definitely wouldnt let my 7yo flip through the 1e MM. I didn't allow my oldest to watch R rated movies until he was 14 even though his friends were allowed because he lacked a filter and would talk about inappropriate things at inappropriate times.

I had friends that weren't allowed to play D&D but could still be friends with me even though I played. I met kids that wouldn't be friends or weren't allowed to be because I played it. Theree is a world of difference between those two views, isnt there?

I don't think it is necessarily that people have had kids and that changed their mind. I think people learn that life is more than a black and white dichotomy. Not trying to be insulting here but you seem not to recognize that.
 



Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top