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
The "moral panics" are a clear symptom of (one form of) intolerance; a form of intolerance which I choose not to tolerate.

Simple as that. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
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.)
Sorry, but I've never made it through an episode of The Simpsons. :)

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."
OK - this alone is reassuring, and didn't really come across in your first post 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?
Nope.

In fact there's very, very few serial TV shows I ever watch these days (and by 'these days' I mean since maybe 2000). 'Murdoch Mysteries' is about the only one I keep up with, and 'Dr. Who'; both due to my wife liking them and getting me interested.

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.
All too true.

Thanks for sharing.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Sorry, but I've never made it through an episode of The Simpsons. :)

I haven't watch a show in probably 20 years, but the first couple of seasons before the characters suffered character decay, there was some legitimately penetrating and funny episodes.

OK - this alone is reassuring, and didn't really come across in your first post on it.

I try very hard to choose my words carefully. There is a difference between 'connected' and 'caused'. I said 'connected'. But as you should be able to ascertain, from what I wrote, I'm not at all convinced of 'connected' or at least not in the sense that others in the family assume.


I wouldn't recommend the show generally or even for that matter endorse the episode, but it worth watching the D&D episode from a the vantage of being a gamer.

In fact there's very, very few serial TV shows I ever watch these days (and by 'these days' I mean since maybe 2000)

I'm with you there. When they cancelled, 'Firefly', I pretty much gave up on TV and there is very little I have watched since then. (Avatar: The Last Airbender… so good.)

My wife watches Dr. Who but I didn't much care for the show when Tom Baker was The Doctor and I was in elementary school, and I don't feel it's gotten better despite the improved special effects.
 

Nor from one perspective were the parents entirely wrong in there concerns, to the extent that I can personally attest to several people I know developing (usually passing) interests in the occult or paganism following experience with D&D. I've even heard (but not confirmed) that in the 90's one neo-Pagan druidic group added to its membership form, in answer to the question, "How did you first become interested in Druidism?" a multiple choice answer, "By playing D&D or other RPGs"? While I haven't confirmed that story, based on my personal anecdotes it's a very believable story.

No one's going to point out that there's nothing wrong with having an interest in the occult, paganism, Druidism, or Satanism? People can choose to be offended by anything they want to be. It's really, really easy. But you can't defend your own particular religious beliefs and then imply there's something wrong with other beliefs, which inherently are not any more or less valid than your own.
 





Well then, yes. I was drawing attention more to an implication than any formal statement; that is, the notion that someone is justified in being "concerned" about something simply because it contains, and by erroneous extension promotes, some sort of belief or practice, even if there's nothing inherently wrong with that belief or practice. Now, as silly as that is, it was merely a strong implication in your original post -- you never actually stated the opinion that your religious beliefs and practices are somehow superior to other people's beliefs and practices. But I'm sure you can see how it could come across that way. "I follow religion/dogma/practice X. This book contains depictions of religion/dogma/practice Y. This offends me and is wrong". That's a non sequitur if you aren't trying to imply that there's something bad about religion/dogma/practice Y. Which is a heck of a slippery slope, because someone from religion/dogma/practice Y could say exactly the same thing about religion/dogma/practice X and be precisely as justified as you are.
 

Henry

Autoexreginated
First of all, I think there’s a misunderstanding of sympathy and empathy going on in the thread:

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Empathy_vs_Sympathy

I can’t have empathy for people like Pat Pulling, because I’ve never had a child, nor lost a child through suicide, nor had anyone in immediate family do so. I can certainly have Sympathy for her original plight, or the incorrect leaps of logic she made to create something like BADD. I can understand that trauma can make people behave in irrational ways, and I have done so myself in the past - but I can’t “put myself in her shoes.”

Secondly, this Momo Challenge silliness seems like it’s stirred up by media influencers as much as it is the news media. I would even posit that social media influencers are the people who need to spread the word more - Kim Kardashian may have done as much to spread misinformation as any one news outlet, which is why I am glad for efforts of people like Phil DeFranco to spread correct info about the whole thing.
 

Celebrim

Legend
First of all, I think there’s a misunderstanding of sympathy and empathy going on in the thread:

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Empathy_vs_Sympathy

I can’t have empathy for people...

While I'm normally on board with providing increasingly precise definitions of words, and while I agree that there are subtle differences between empathy and sympathy, I'm going to have to rebel against your explanation. It does not require that I have experienced exactly the same experiences for me to have empathy for someone else. If that were the case, no empathy would be possible. But the perfect is not the enemy of the good. Our empathy may always be necessarily imperfect, but we all have imaginations and we can place ourselves in the shoes of others. I don't have to have lost a child to imagine the pain, trauma, and suffering of that. My empathy may be imperfect and perhaps it would never be as complete as if I'd had the same experience, but even if I had, it would still be incomplete because everyone's experience is there own. I reject the notion that individual experiences are so there own, that they represent an unbridgeable gulf for empathy. Not only do I think that is wrong based on my own experience, but the implications of that are ugly.

I put forth our capacity to tell stories as an example of how we breach the divide between us in order to have empathy in situations we've not directly experienced. And I consider that not only to be beautiful, but one of the noble justifications for our vain hobby.

I think I may actually have more empathy for Pauling than I have sympathy for her. There gets to be a point in her chain of behavior where to me she goes from being a distressed mother whom you could easily have sympathy for, to someone who is irrational to the point of insanity. There comes a point where I have no sympathy for people who are so convinced that they are right, that they do things that they know to be wrong because its some how justified by the beautiful goal that they have. I have more empathy for that than sympathy for that sort of thing. But, even if my sympathy wanes on account of her behavior, I'm not going to hold that up as anything but a failing on my part. I don't predicate compassion on agreement.

Secondly, this Momo Challenge silliness seems like it’s stirred up by media influencers as much as it is the news media. I would even posit that social media influencers are the people who need to spread the word more - Kim Kardashian may have done as much to spread misinformation as any one news outlet, which is why I am glad for efforts of people like Phil DeFranco to spread correct info about the whole thing.

Honestly, it's hard for me to tell how much of this Momo Challenge is a real thing and not just a good story. I'd barely heard about it before this thread, and it certainly wasn't on the lips of my middle schoolers - who are usually on top of all the trends and fads. Earlier I said that its very difficult in a mass media age to know how much something that is in the news is in the news because its news worthy - that is the Momo Challenge hoax was a major thing impacting many people and therefore its worth reporting on - or else its in the news because it makes for good news - click bait, provocative, and so forth. We live in an age were the media, whether we are talking traditional media or alternative media sources or just people with a platform, needs to and generally does manufacture the news. There are tons of things I see in the news where I think, "Why is that in the news beyond the fact that having become news it will attract attention?" Now of course, just because I wasn't really effected or paying attention doesn't mean that it wasn't a thing to many millions, but my point is that news these days is manufactured for many reasons more than it is reported.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top