Violent movies

[furtwaengler]

I just read this article by Eric Tetaxas who, in light of the real life slaughter in Newtown, CT, is calling for a friendly protest of the over-the-top violence in what, just weeks following Newtown, are America's top two movies, "Texas Chainsaw 3-D" and "Django Unchained."

Is this a sign of just how sick our society has became that we can be so outraged at events like the shootings in Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT, and yet be so entertained by fantastic displays and depictions of violence in the movies? Indeed this, to me, is a horrible inconsistency.

Here's the article that got me thinking:
https://www.ericmetaxas.com/blog/light-a-candle-for-newtown-against-violence/

Dave

[outin]

I admit I have always been a fan of horror movies. The violence kind of belongs there. Yet I don't think I have become any less or more violent because of them. Cencorship I just can't see helping in any of the problems in your society (it has been tried on so many occasions).

[andreslr6]

I wouldn't call it sick as long as it doesn't celebrate violence.

I remember one of the reasons I liked A History of Violence and American History X was because of the shock they gave me with the intense violence, and they are not celebrating it, they make it disturbing on purpose and in fact make you wish violence like that didn't exist. So there's really a more artistic and meaningful purpose to the violence in those movies.

I haven't watched the ones you mentioned though.

[p2u_]

Is this a sign of just how sick our society has became that we can be so outraged at events like the shootings in Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT, and yet be so entertained by fantastic displays and depictions of violence in the movies? Indeed this, to me, is a horrible inconsistency.

There is no inconsistency, however horrible that may sound. The "outrage" I see on TV and in the mass media about the events you are referring seems rather hypocritical to me. It would be too easy to blame Hollywood alone. Actually, I am convinced that there is deliberate psychological conditioning/brainwashing going on through all forms of entertainment (how about violent computer games?) to let people gradually overcome the resistance to killing. Combined with ideas about patriotism that smell rather nationalistic (I see this happen virtually all over the world), this is all going in a rather suspicious direction.

Paul

[andreslr6]

would be too easy to blame Hollywood alone. Actually, I am convinced that there is deliberate psychological conditioning/brainwashing going on through all forms of entertainment (how about violent computer games?) to let people gradually overcome the resistance to killing.

Do you mean that I'll become a mass murderer at some point?

I've played violent videogames all my life and never have I even been in a fight!

Actually, the brainwash is to think that movies/videogames or whatever is the reason why people got mad on a killing spree. Did you know this kind of violent events existed even BEFORE videogames? or that sports have killed way lot more people than violent videogames? in fact videogames have never killed anyone... you know, there's something called human nature, and I believe that that is the one to blame... if you remember, gladiators and stuff for example, Romans liked killing for FUN... unless they had time machines and they had videogames and violent movies too... maybe Hitler played Call of Duty and that's why he went on a Jew extermination campaign...

unless I missunderstood you.. but here, watch this, maybe you'll learn something from here:

[p2u_]

Do you mean that I'll become a mass murderer at some point?

I mean that your perception of violence will change because of what you are systematically subjected to. Mass murder is extreme, but with time, if the reason is good enough for you, you may become ready to kill, yes.

I've played violent videogames all my life and never have I even been in a fight!

Maybe you just haven't played "enough" yet?

Actually, the brainwash is to think that movies/videogames or whatever is the reason why people got mad on a killing spree. Did you know this kind of violent events existed even BEFORE videogames? or that sports have killed way lot more people than violent videogames? in fact videogames have never killed anyone...

Never before in history have there been such powerful tools and in such quantity and quality to manipulate and provoke "the people" as now.

unless I missunderstood you.. but here, watch this, maybe you'll learn something from here:

So? What is that supposed to teach me? I'm not arguing in particular against violent computer games. We are constantly subjected to stuff we can no longer handle. That's my point. Take your mobile phone, for example. Do you have any idea what it does to your brain?
EDIT: And do you have any idea what 3D does to your subconscious?

Paul

[andreslr6]

 

So? What is that supposed to teach me? I'm not arguing in particular against violent computer games. We are constantly subjected to stuff we can no longer handle. That's my point. Take your mobile phone, for example. Do you have any idea what it does to your brain?

Paul

Ok, it's just we can't blame these stuff for the bad and stupid things PEOPLE do, that's the hypocrisy. Saying it's videogames making people violent, or movies are what make people violent, or that guns kills people is just the cowards and lazy and BS way out, people are the guilty, not for creating those tools but for the actions. I can kill someone with a couch or with a piano as well, that doesn't mean couches and pianos make people violent.

People are and will become violent because we are people, just because of that, nothing more, nothing less, and me and you and my sister and your neighbor can turn into a killer if we want to, with or without provokation. It's just people.

Videogames in fact reduced violence in teens.

[andreslr6]

EDIT: And do you have any idea what 3D does to your subconscious?

No, what does it do?

[Bob]

We'll have to ban violent books too. Anything violent... ban it.  You could probably extend that to music.  Atonal music... causing violence.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

It's ridiculous to blame violence on video games and movies.

Some dude said it before me, but there's this strang thing called... HUMAN NATURE.

[j_menz]

there's this strange thing called... HUMAN NATURE.

Some stranger than others.

Isn't human nature culturally malleable?

[p2u_]

People are and will become violent because we are people, just because of that, nothing more, nothing less, and me and you and my sister and your neighbor can turn into a killer if we want to, with or without provokation. It's just people.

That is the standard excuse for those who develop the "experience enhancement". Please, please, do not make this your own because it is an evil excuse to do nothing about the underlying problem.

Videogames in fact reduced violence in teens.

Says who? You must know by now that paid-for researchers and statistics will tell you just about anything?

No, what does it do?

It "enhances the experience".

Paul

[p2u_]

We'll have to ban violent books too. Anything violent... ban it.  You could probably extend that to music.  Atonal music... causing violence.

Think again, Bob. Are books and music as confronting as the media I was talking about? Why then do we have a motion picture rating system? And why then do we assume that a person who is 17 (too young) today will suddenly be able to handle the contents tomorrow (the next day that is) when he/she is 18?

It's ridiculous to blame violence on video games and movies.

I am not afraid of being thought of as crazy. Those media are NOT good for people's psychological health.

Some dude said it before me, but there's this strang thing called... HUMAN NATURE.

Isn't this funny? Since we all know human nature so well, why then are we deliberately triggering its worst implications? Remember, in order for that material to "sell", it has to become more and more violent because people are gradually becoming imune to it (= no longer ready to pay for it or waste time watching/playing it).

Paul

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Some stranger than others.

[j_menz]

Why did you assume I meant yours? Nothing I said required that interpretation.

Perhaps I should have added manipulabe to malleable.

[ajspiano]

Isn't this funny? Since we all know human nature so well, why then are we deliberately triggering it's worst implications? Remember, in order for that material to "sell", it has to become more and more violent because people are gradually becoming imune to it.

Paul

While I would agree that as a populace we are likely immune to violence in media (I certainly am [games/television/etc]) - that absolutely does not mean we are immune or remotely desensitized  to it in real life. It is very confrontational, and there is a notable difference between physically experienced stimulus and video based media.

As one example (hardly proof, but for conversations sake) - I while ago I saw an episode of a gaming TV show where they rigged up a physical 3D environment to "battlefield 3" (a first person shooter PC game) which while highly violent is not exactly scary to play, because it is fake. The 3D environment they built entailed the following.

• A dome shaped game environment with a diameter of 5m or so (enough to stand up and walk around in
• Inside, a 360 degree multi-directional treadmill linked to the players movement controls
• 360 degree swivelling projector, meaning that the game image stayed infront of the player, beyond the point of their peripheral vision no matter what direction they faced.
• Sensors that tracked the players exact position within the environment
• An actual physical weapon to hold and shoot with
• They mounted paintball guns around the environment that would adjust their aim dependant on the players location - thus, you get shot in the game and you actually get shot for real

As a result of this players were left genuinely afraid of playing, refusing to re-enter. People with actual military training were the only ones able to withstand the mental strain and successfully complete the game's tasks. They reported being so thoroughly immersed in the play that they genuinely feared for their life, and for the lives of their computer controlled mission buddies. Just like in real combat..

regular PC/console games just don't produce that kind of effect...  and I find it incredibly hard to believe that you could play enough regular games and consume enough regular media that you'll develop an immunity to violence if its not already in your nature.

....

I'm rather inclined to suggest that video games exist as an outlet for tendencies that exist already but that are socially unacceptable. For me, playing violent video games undoubtedly makes me even less likely to act out in reality...  not that I'm likely to anyway.

..perhaps similar to the way sport has replaced war in regard to our desire to conquer other humans.

However, I would argue that the material is inappropriate for younger people during critical development..  before they can make reasonable assessment of right/wrong and reality/fantasy.

[mikeowski]

I think this video explains it all quite well.

[Bob]

We'll also have to ban that heavy metal grunge music.

Wait, wait... Rock and roll.  That's the root of all evil.  


I bet there's plenty of evidence that criminals are listening to rock and metal.  


If we take it back further, just ban instrumental music.  And any music with more dissonance than unisons, 8ves, and 5ths.  Anything more dissonant would be impure and evil, likely to lead to voilent, insane acts.  

[p2u_]

@ Bob

To really understand the problem, we should realize how the "thinking process" works. I think it works in "pictures", not in words or in abstract concepts. Pollute the brain with enough pictures of a certain kind and you manipulate the thinking process. That is my assumption. I highly disagree with the example  of music in this context because it is essentially another medium.

As which while highly violent is not exactly scary to play, because it is fake.

The "fake-not fake" is already dangerous territory. I believe that (especially young) people are more and more UNABLE to distinguish between reality and fake. When I see children beating up their peers before the camera of their mobile phones, I have a feeling they do it because they really believe it's just fake; just a movie they are acting in. They are often surprised about the consequences afterwards and, of course, are not liable for their deeds.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that you could play enough regular games and consume enough regular media that you'll develop an immunity to violence if its not already in your nature.

I'm afraid it's in everybody's nature if the reason is good enough.

Paul

[andreslr6]

I think this video explains it all quite well.

What did you do to make the link work?? that´s the one I posted earlier

[Bob]

And we can all live in some kind of protective covering.... Some giant, yet still mobile, plastic covering... It would have to be clear so we could still see through it.. Like a giant, protective hamster ball where nothing can ever hurt us.  

Oh.  Wait.  Nevermind.

[p2u_]

And we can all live in some kind of protective covering.... Some giant, yet still mobile, plastic covering... It would have to be clear so we could still see through it.. Like a giant, protective hamster ball where nothing can ever hurt us.  

Oh.  Wait.  Nevermind.

I am not proposing any solutions to this problem because there are none. It is good, though, to recognize things for what they really are.

Paul

[mikeowski]

What did you do to make the link work?? that´s the one I posted earlier

All I did was the good old ctrl+c / ctrl+v.
Maybe you had https in front of your link? I think that makes it not work.

[j_menz]

My concern is not that we have so much simulation that looks like actual violence but rather that we are starting to see so much real violence which looks, to the perpetrator, so much like merely a simulation - drones and other remotely controlled instruments of death and destruction, the use of which is on the rise.

[ajspiano]

The "fake-not fake" is already dangerous territory. I believe that (especially young) people are more and more UNABLE to distinguish between reality and fake. When I see children beating up their peers before the camera of their mobile phones, I have a feeling they do it because they really believe it's just fake; just a movie they are acting in. They are often surprised about the consequences afterwards and, of course, are not liable for their deeds.

I'm afraid it's in everybody's nature if the reason is good enough.

Well I agree that its not appropriate for younger people..  There's no way I'd have my own kids consuming that kind of thing. I don't see it as at all a problem for an adult though.

And yes, it is in everyone's nature..  anyone clinging to the notion that its a friendly world where you don't have to fight for what you want and defend what you have is very naive..   but we fight and conquer in more passive ways that we used to centuries ago.

I think its incredibly insane to suggest that media is a cause though. Adults have the ability to choose their own path, and to appropriately direct the path of their children. The fact that we see those videos of teenage violence is not a game developer or media authorities fault even if it is a factor influencing behavior. No one forced anybody to watch TV or play violent games.. we all choose...

The fact that such media is popular is probably a reflection of our nature as much as it can be something that impacts it.

[p2u_]

I think its incredibly insane to suggest that media is a cause though. Adults have the ability to choose their own path, and to appropriately direct the path of their children. The fact that we see those videos of teenage violence is not a game developer or media authorities fault even if it is a factor influencing behavior. No one forced anybody to watch TV or play violent games.. we all choose...

I'm more pessimistic about this. I think parents are basically powerless. They may forbid it at home, but the aggressive pushing outside the home is so huge that it is virtually impossible to protect your child. Case in point: Around New Year, there was again one of those retrospective shows announced in the commercials right between two children's programs. And what do you think they showed? 9-11, the twin tower plane crash. My son (7 years old) saw this announcement and shouted: "Wow! Cool! I wanna watch that!"

Paul

[outin]

I'm more pessimistic about this. I think parents are basically powerless. They may forbid it at home, but the aggressive pushing is so huge that it is virtually impossible to protect your child.

This is why it's important to get the offspring hooked on piano playing...they won't have time to do anything else than practice and their internet use will be limited to safe sites like PS 

[Bob]

I remember a professor saying people have been trying to get things banned for a long time.  I'm think he said 1980s, Supreme Court... His point was no one could ever prove that media caused violence. 

Although I don't know if that was studying everyone, as opposed to impressionable young people or people who are mentally off to begin with.  I don't see the point in banning something for everyone if it's a handful of mentally ill people who are overly influenced.  Have something to restrict things for just those people.  For kids, I guess things could be restricted with something like ratings.

If it's for everyone, then you should be able to take anyone, show them something violent, and turn them into a killer. 

[ajspiano]

I'm more pessimistic about this. I think parents are basically powerless. They may forbid it at home, but the aggressive pushing outside the home is so huge that it is virtually impossible to protect your child. Case in point: Around New Year, there was again one of those retrospective shows announced in the commercials right between two children's programs. And what do you think they showed? 9-11, the twin tower plane crash. My son (7 years old) saw this announcement and shouted: "Wow! Cool! I wanna watch that!"

Paul

You'd be surprised - actually I doubt you would be - how well a child can manage without a TV in the family home. I have a friend who grew up in that environment, not surprisingly he and his entire family are great sports people, musicians and artists. No specialties, they are all good at everything..

It annoys me that TV is something that is considered a must have. Most kids at our school considered that friend and his family to be freaks because they refused to bring a TV into their house.

I'm rather inclined to think that parents are at a disadvantage as you say, but that the majority that I've personally witnessed in action could be a lot more proactive about filtering their childrens media consumption..

ofcourse my perspective may change when I have my own children..

[Bob]

Oh crap....

 


How long does it take for the effect to kick in? I'll need some more car insurance.

[p2u_]

If it's for everyone, then you should be able to take anyone, show them something violent, and turn them into a killer.

Well, not in one session, of course, but gradually and specific to the "patient" or group of "guiena pigs", there is no doubt in my mind that this is possible. Please read up on how cults and sects work. Of course, one can easily predict that certain genetic and environmental factors will act upon the chances for "success".

Paul

[Bob]

So we can take anyone, expose them to violence, and they'll become violent?

[p2u_]

I'm rather inclined to think that parents are at a disadvantage as you say, but that the majority that I've personally witnessed in action could be a lot more proactive about filtering their childrens media consumption..

[sarcastic mode]Yeah, sure...[/sarcastic mode]

I have a DefaultDeny policy for the Internet at home, for example - anything that is not explicitly allowed is blocked, even for myself. No incidental "If you want me, click between my legs" and stuff. But I can't forbid my son to go to his friend's house and watch censored stuff there, can I? That would be a cruel thing to do and it would also push my own child away from me.

Paul

[p2u_]

So we can take anyone, expose them to violence, and they'll become violent?

If you give them a good REASON to be violent (this is different for different people), then basically: yes. If they can't handle the idea of violence itself, find it unacceptable, then they might eventually kill themselves to end the pain.

Paul

[ajspiano]

Well, not in one session, of course, but gradually and specific to the "patient" or group of "guiena pigs", there is no doubt in my mind that this is possible. Please read up on how cults and sects work. Of course, one can easily predict that certain genetic and environmental factors will act upon the chances for "success".

Paul

Yes but, they would have to exposed to that over and over with NO other contradictory stimulus. Conditioning behaviour requires consistency.

There needs to be positive association to the desired behaviour and/or negative association to the alternative.. and that needs to be rinsed and repeated for a long time to generate the kind of effects we are talking about.

[sarcastic mode]Yeah, sure...[/sarcastic mode]

I have a DefaultDeny policy for the Internet at home, for example - anything that is not explicitly allowed is blocked, even for myself. No incidental "If you want me, click between my legs" and stuff. But I can't forbid my son to go to his friend's house and watch sencored stuff there, can I? That would be cruel thing to do and it would also push my own child away from me.

Paul

Yes ofcourse you can't control everything, but the point is that there are things that can be controlled that a lot of parents either don't control or see no need to...  (I don't suspect that you are one of those parents at all by the way)

..I've seen parents who just can't control their kids at all. The child at no more than 6 or 7yrs controls the parent. The child decides what it wants to do and the parent sighs and thinks "this is too hard".

[p2u_]

Yes but, they would have to exposed to that over and over with NO other contradictory stimulus. Conditioning behaviour requires consistency.

There needs to be positive association to the desired behaviour and/or negative association to the alternative.. and that needs to be rinsed and repeated for a long time to generate the kind of effects we are talking about.

Everyone "breaks", ajspiano, everyone. It's just a matter of time and the "right" circumstances.

Paul

[ajspiano]

Everyone "breaks", ajspiano, everyone. It's just a matter of time and the "right" circumstances.

Paul

i dont dispute that. i just think that if we take 2 people and berate them until they have a breakdown then the level of.violence found in their reaction will be a result of in person human influence far more than it will be media influenced

[p2u_]

i dont dispute that. i just think that if we take 2 people and berate them until they have a breakdown then the level of.violence found in their reaction will be a result of in person human influence far more than it will be media influenced.

Again, my son as an example. I have no way of knowing for sure how much he is subjected to when he's not at home, so I cannot work specifically enough. I can only guess, but he won't give me a full account anyway. I try to channel the growing aggression I observe by sending him to a martial arts school, where they are taught to keep things under control. I have a feeling that while I may be doing a VERY good job as a parent, the result of my efforts is much like a ticket in the lottery. I'm hugely concerned about what the outcome will be when he gets older. Society will point its finger at me if things go wrong. That's a foregone conclusion.

Paul

[lloyd_cdb]

For kids, I guess things could be restricted with something like ratings.

Things are restricted by ratings. Just like kids under 18 can't look at porn. I'm pretty sure I clicked "I'm over 18" 15 years ago.

Although I don't know if that was studying everyone, as opposed to impressionable young people or people who are mentally off to begin with.  I don't see the point in banning something for everyone if it's a handful of mentally ill people who are overly influenced.  Have something to restrict things for just those people.

Not that I think this is what you meant, but I want to address comments like these which I tend to get offended as well as scared by.  I have 3 siblings, 2 suffer from mental illness, the other suffers from Aspergers which is commonly considered a mental illness even though it's actually in the autism spectrum (because the shooter in CT suffered from it as well).

People seem to really enjoy pointing fingers after listening to popular media. Taking a couple examples doesn't really make anything statistically significant if you choose to ignore the bigger picture. Poor logic is portrayed constantly in popular media just because ratings go up with controversy.  Given that this entire conversation is discussing trends in violence, mentioning the mentally ill is one of the worst examples you can bring up.

https://www.cmha.ca/mental_health/violence-and-mental-illness/#.UPBUaz7_mSp

Poorly treated people tend to react strongly. Bullying someone and then being shocked when they punch you in the face is absolutely absurd.

Not that you necessarily went to this black and white extent, but by the logical fallacies that are typically brought up in this scenario:

• I ran 3 miles this morning.  That means I run 3 miles everyday (Walking to work is my typical exercise for the day)
• I saw a wanted picture on the news of a black guy that stabbed someone to death.  All black people are murderers.
• I saw my brother drink a glass of milk while my sister drank water.  Men drink milk, women drink water
• [Insert male enhancement stories here]

It's just data mining at it's finest and pollutes the minds of those who read it.  Most people are regurgitators, and just repeat things they hear on the news without bothering to verify it.

Sorry for the rant.

/rant

EDIT: These are some of the reasons why I said I'm scared.  I should actually revise that statement: I'm terrified.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/21/the-nra-wants-an-active-mental-illness-database-thirty-eight-states-have-that-now/

What happens when this database becomes public information and begins to be applied to other aspects of their lives?  My 'mentally ill' siblings are all stable and have been for years.  Mental illness is rarely a lifetime disorder except in specific types.  People have specific incidents that trigger it, and may not be easily diagnosed.  My brother had 1 incident that triggered his bi-polar and was subsequently addressed and 'cured' within 6 months.  My sister is a teacher, specializing in special needs children due to her struggles in childhood bullying.  Do you think she could have ever had that job if she was in a public database?  Those children would have 1 less person on their side.  Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Gun lobbying funding, which make this all the more terrifying as a realistic possibility:

https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2012/dec/27/pro-gun-versus-gun-control-spending

None of this means I don't think we should deal with mental illness.  But bringing it up in association with violent acts is just an easy way to point a finger and turn your back.

[lloyd_cdb]

You'd be surprised - actually I doubt you would be - how well a child can manage without a TV in the family home. I have a friend who grew up in that environment, not surprisingly he and his entire family are great sports people, musicians and artists. No specialties, they are all good at everything..

It annoys me that TV is something that is considered a must have. Most kids at our school considered that friend and his family to be freaks because they refused to bring a TV into their house.

I grew up in a similar situation. Started learning piano at 6.  At age 8, the cathode ray tube broke in our TV (good ol' days, lol).  We didn't get another one for almost 10 years.  We were also told we were strange.  I picked up 2 more instruments within the next couple years and played 3 sports going into high-school.  8 years ago I decided to pick up a new hobby every couple of years with the massive amount of free time I have compared to the average TV watcher (5 hours a day!).  I picked up brewing, wood carving and recently started reading my way through Presidential biographies.

As an adult I still very rarely watch TV, most likely as a result of my childhood.  Most of my TV watching now is the popular trendy shows so I can carry conversations with anyone I deal with in my job.  <--- I find that entertaining (puns, tehehe).

In no way am I saying I'm good at everything though.  It is just incredibly impressive how much extra time you have when you take a little time away from tiny flashing lights.  As many studies imply, the more time you spend learning and practicing the better you get (SHOCKER!).