Massimo2002
Active Member
This Is a sad thing because it means people would rather support violence instead of peace what a sad decade for humanity. people love there mindlessly violent "entertainment".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It seems most people are becoming desinitized to violence because of tv and movies and music and video games
- Thread starter Massimo2002
- Start date
That is a popular belief, but one that I find surprising and unfounded.
IMO people are much significantly violent outside of videogames and other mass-scale fiction than when immersed on them.
Violent fiction is attractive because it offers the sensation of consequence-less violent behavior. But people find that sensation rewarding to begin with because they crave the opportunity to be openly violent, or at least rude. We feel lonely, misunderstood, and treat unfairly - and to some degree we all probably are.
On top of that we lack even the acknowledgement of those lacks; we are frequently told to be adult, mature and accepting of losses and prices - or, worse, we are not even told to.
How could we not want to strike back?
People do support violence instead of peace. But that is far more of a problem and even of a visible problem in politics and social behavior than in anything having to do with acknowledged fiction.
IMO people are much significantly violent outside of videogames and other mass-scale fiction than when immersed on them.
Violent fiction is attractive because it offers the sensation of consequence-less violent behavior. But people find that sensation rewarding to begin with because they crave the opportunity to be openly violent, or at least rude. We feel lonely, misunderstood, and treat unfairly - and to some degree we all probably are.
On top of that we lack even the acknowledgement of those lacks; we are frequently told to be adult, mature and accepting of losses and prices - or, worse, we are not even told to.
How could we not want to strike back?
People do support violence instead of peace. But that is far more of a problem and even of a visible problem in politics and social behavior than in anything having to do with acknowledged fiction.
Come to think of it, while I remain quite unconvinced that the violence would be bleeding out of videogames and fiction instead of into them, there are some worrisome traits that I see as very frequent in popular fiction that reflect a violent, predatory attitude.
One is competitiveness itself. Games that involve a joint effort of some kind and pursue balance instead of victory can easily be made - both digital and analogic - and do in fact exist. But they just don't have the same popular appeal, because we crave the thrill of victory.
Another is the very idea of victory. My favorite game in the last few days is literally named "Tower Wars". It is not particularly atypical except perhaps in that it has a bit of whimsical, humoristic presentation. But some of its design choice, while typical, are rather puzzling from a detached view.
For instance, victory in that game involves finding a good balance between investing in gold mine expansion, recruiting of miners, and researching new kinds of fighters and improvements to their abilities.
Sounds realistic at that level of detail, but once we get into the details it is quite fantastical and encourages a predatorial, irresponsible mindset. Beyond being a literal arms race against a remarkably similar opponent, the game makes it so there can be no survival (let alone victory) without that arms race and its ever more demanding expansion. Gold mines simply do not exhaust; the rate at which it can be dug is limited, but never diminishes; individual soldiers exist only to last as long as they can and to inflict as much damage as they can to the adversary. The game actually tells me outright that my opponent "will only get stronger" - which is true until and unless I manage to destroy his castle outright by becoming stronger and more dangerous faster and more efficiently than him.
That is quite the depersonalization of what is supposed to be an enemy (as opposed to some form of monster). And it is a very usual way of thinking in most fields these days. Quite the opposite of any form of holistic thinking.
But is holistic thinking losing favor because fiction is violent? Or is violent fiction popular because people do not want to go through the trouble of thinking holistically instead?
To some degree it is both, but I find it strange that we can put effort into attempting to preserve civil discourse with open defenders of the destruction of our civil systems (Trump supporters in the USA, Bolsonaristas here in Brazil, all sorts of supporters of dictators and military rulers elsewhere) while being reluctant to call them out for their goals, and yet somehow it is the fiction that is perverting our minds.
No, I don't think that works. Fox News, the NRA, the overlasting acceptance of the violence of Christian groups and of so-called politicians that make a career out of expressing violent views about their opponents and about their goals. Those I would blame. But videogames? I don't think so.
One is competitiveness itself. Games that involve a joint effort of some kind and pursue balance instead of victory can easily be made - both digital and analogic - and do in fact exist. But they just don't have the same popular appeal, because we crave the thrill of victory.
Another is the very idea of victory. My favorite game in the last few days is literally named "Tower Wars". It is not particularly atypical except perhaps in that it has a bit of whimsical, humoristic presentation. But some of its design choice, while typical, are rather puzzling from a detached view.
For instance, victory in that game involves finding a good balance between investing in gold mine expansion, recruiting of miners, and researching new kinds of fighters and improvements to their abilities.
Sounds realistic at that level of detail, but once we get into the details it is quite fantastical and encourages a predatorial, irresponsible mindset. Beyond being a literal arms race against a remarkably similar opponent, the game makes it so there can be no survival (let alone victory) without that arms race and its ever more demanding expansion. Gold mines simply do not exhaust; the rate at which it can be dug is limited, but never diminishes; individual soldiers exist only to last as long as they can and to inflict as much damage as they can to the adversary. The game actually tells me outright that my opponent "will only get stronger" - which is true until and unless I manage to destroy his castle outright by becoming stronger and more dangerous faster and more efficiently than him.
That is quite the depersonalization of what is supposed to be an enemy (as opposed to some form of monster). And it is a very usual way of thinking in most fields these days. Quite the opposite of any form of holistic thinking.
But is holistic thinking losing favor because fiction is violent? Or is violent fiction popular because people do not want to go through the trouble of thinking holistically instead?
To some degree it is both, but I find it strange that we can put effort into attempting to preserve civil discourse with open defenders of the destruction of our civil systems (Trump supporters in the USA, Bolsonaristas here in Brazil, all sorts of supporters of dictators and military rulers elsewhere) while being reluctant to call them out for their goals, and yet somehow it is the fiction that is perverting our minds.
No, I don't think that works. Fox News, the NRA, the overlasting acceptance of the violence of Christian groups and of so-called politicians that make a career out of expressing violent views about their opponents and about their goals. Those I would blame. But videogames? I don't think so.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
It's even worse than becoming desensitized, we become enamored with the idea of using massive violence as a solution to our problems with other humans. And this is fueling our insane obsession with guns, and our use of warfare for political and economic reasons. It also fuels the propensity for mass shootings in this country.
A few things to keep in mind:
- There are plenty of examples of media that are non-violent and encourage other values. As such, blanket statements that desensitization to violence happens because of exposure to media is too non-specific to be valid.
- The specific media any given individual will consume is based on their own preferences. As such, the sorts of folks who prefer to watch specifically violent media may simply be inclined to violence as a problem solution to begin with.
- While studies connecting violent media to real world violence are ambiguous, studies connecting violent media with aggressive behavior are not. There is some connection between environmental media exposures and human behavior, but it is complex.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Did you ever stop to think alternative ways and means to release one's pent up energy through entertainment mediums actually reduces violence?
PureX
Veteran Member
Sure, like buying a gun makes you safer? ... PFFFT!
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Like playing Arma will actually kill a person. Lol
Fictional violence doesn't desensitize you to real violence. There's a big difference between the two. I love ultra violent movies, books and games where blood, body parts and entrails are all over the place but I don't want to see that irl. I've seen the real stuff before, too.
Last edited:
I think most folks understand the consequences of their actions in real life. That is what out culture teaches us. Violent entertainment allows people to experience it without the real life consequences. Folks who can't understand the difference have more problems than playing violent video games. They need some professional counseling.
Last edited:
Heyo
Veteran Member
That is a talking point that frequently surfaces, and there have been multiple studies which debunk the notion.
People, even children, can well discern between real and fictional violence. (There are very few exceptions, and they are drawn to violent entertainment because they have violent tendencies, not the other way around.)
We had violent entertainment since before the invention of fairy tales and every few years someone wants to ban whatever is seen as too violent, books, comix, TV, games - and it is always baseless, built on faulty reasoning and an unhealthy urge to rule other people's lives. It has also been used to distract from more pressing issues, especially the real reasons for real violence.
YellowFeather
Member
We live in a time of temptation that each individual has to decide to on his own not to fall into the tempatations of the world that holds violence, anger and hate. One has to pull away from these tempatations that he can be trusted and live together in peace. Those who do will live forever in peace in the New Kingdom God has planned.