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

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Are you claiming that in fact I don't know people who developed interests in the occult or paganism following and often because of experiences with D&D?
No.

I'd be claiming, via reading between some pretty broad lines in what you wrote, that the fact that this happened meets with your disapproval.

And that's just sad.

On second thought, let me take that up a notch. Are you claiming that I don't personally know someone whose suicide was connected by his family to his playing D&D and that as such, I have no personal experiences or particular take on that claim which are relevant to the discussion? Not hearsay. Not my brother's best friends cousin told him. Personal experience.
Does your personal experience with this unfortunate incident happen to extend far enough to know whether the D&D connection established by the family was in fact accurate, or whether it was an incorrect connection made by a grieving family looking for a place to put the blame?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Why don't you explain your points that you made earlier? I looked back, and this was it:

"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."

Let me be clear- I have no sympathy for the people who perpetuated the 1980s moral panics. There are a lot of innocent people who went to jail because power-hungry idiots propagated false beliefs about satanic worship.

A lot of people, and a lot of families, were hurt.


As opposed to some yahoos who continued on their lives as normal. So ... screw 'em.

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

One important distinction that may have gotten lost is that in Celebrim's original post (and my response to it), we were talking about the general mass of parents and other adults, not about Pat Pulling or other specific individuals who led the crusade. My comments shouldn't be read as applying to any specific individuals, nor do I want to get drawn into that discussion. Celebrim, although he charitably expressed "some" empathy for Jack Chic, also called the man a "complete idiot." So nobody has yet defended the leaders of the moral panic.

I think it's safe to assume that everyone on this forum agrees that the moral panic was a bad thing that led to bad outcomes. If we were trying to work together face-to-face on this issue instead of lobbing thoughts at anonymous forum users, I hope that would be enough common ground for a good working relationship. Beyond that, we may never see eye to eye about the degree to which the participants (again, by which I mean the general mass of parents and influencers, not specific individuals) were Evil, Uninformed, or simply Had Different Values. For myself, I would assume that each individual had a different mix of those elements.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
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.
I have neither sympathy nor empathy for those who promote or support these "moral panics", whether over D&D, Harry Potter, His Dark Materials, or anything else. To do otherwise implies a degree of validation of those views which I categorically refuse to accept.
 

Celebrim

Legend
No.

I'd be claiming, via reading between some pretty broad lines in what you wrote, that the fact that this happened meets with your disapproval.

And that's just sad.

Ok. I acknowledge you feel that way. However, I put it to you that almost all people tend to disapprove of people adopting religious viewpoints that differ with their own. And this includes atheists disapproving when people adopt religious beliefs. I'm willing to bet, we could find a point you'd disapprove of as well. (There is actually a great early season Simpson episode on this subject, with the Flanders wanting to baptize Maggie that is worth watching.)

Also, I'd assert that not disapproving of people adopting religious viewpoints differing than your own is itself a religious position, and I suspect that people with that position would disapprove of people adopting the contrary position, that some exclusive religious viewpoint is the true and correct one. In other words, if you are a moral relativist, if a loved one adopted a moral absolutist position, you'd probably disapprove.

This is not in any way an attempt to argue for religious intolerance, which I'm sure some will try to make it.

Does your personal experience with this unfortunate incident happen to extend far enough to know whether the D&D connection established by the family was in fact accurate, or whether it was an incorrect connection made by a grieving family looking for a place to put the blame?

Ahh... OK. I'll go there.

I'm not going to go into the complex details, nor am I going to explain the position taken by my family members which is a good deal more nuanced than the take some are ascribing. It's not like any were saying in their grief, "If only he hadn't played D&D, he'd be alive today."

Instead I'm going to talk only about my take on it.

Have you seen the episode of 'Community' which focuses on the group playing D&D with someone because they fear he might be suicidal? My take on the situation is closer to that. There is a lot of complicated factors going on, but rather than seeing roleplaying as a cause or a contributing factor, I tend to see his role-playing as something he was clinging to, to try to find purpose in life. Weak thread to cling to though it might be, it was one of his life rafts, and the real problem is that a person with serious problems needs a lot more support than self-medicating with role-play and drugs. Of course, if you've actually been in this sort of situation, you know that reaching that person in need and effecting a change isn't a trivial one, and is likely to be resisted.
 

Celebrim

Legend
I have neither sympathy nor empathy for those who promote or support these "moral panics", whether over D&D, Harry Potter, His Dark Materials, or anything else. To do otherwise implies a degree of validation of those views which I categorically refuse to accept.

Oh wow.
 


Celebrim

Legend
Really?

You have sympathy for "those who promote or support [] 'moral panics'"?

Oh, wow.

Why is that even surprising? My religious convictions have been no secret on this board for a very long time. I realize we are living in a comparatively irreligious age, but come on:

"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." - Matthew 5:43-48

Has it really reached the point where this sort of thing isn't known?

What I find really strange is you jumping up and down saying how we ought to first have sympathy for the victims of moral panics. Did you ever consider from what I've said so far that I might be among those victims you demand we have sympathy for?
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Really?

You have sympathy for "those who promote or support [] 'moral panics'"?

Oh, wow.

Maybe it would help if we defined terms. I'll use a blog post at dictionary.com for a quick and dirty definition:
  • sympathy is feeling compassion, sorrow, or pity for the hardships that another person encounters
  • empathy is putting yourself in the shoes of another

According to that definition, I would expect myself to attempt both sympathy and empathy for people who did a lot worse things than participate in a moral panic. I may or may not be successful, depending on the circumstances, but I would expect myself to try.

This has nothing to do with and is not the same as validating the views or actions of the people toward whom I'm practicing sympathy or empathy. It's simply something I expect of myself to be the kind of person I want to be.
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top