Thread: Violence and Propaganda

I don't think we are being desensitized to violence--I think if anything we are being sensitized to it the more society moves toward progressive ideas. For instance, how many people in high school today do you think would be able to slaughter a cow or a pig or a chicken, or even just watch it without wincing? At least in America's case, the bigger cities and cities along the coast would probably have a lot of trouble with it, while southern and more western states would have a little less trouble, but trouble nonetheless. Back even just a thousand years ago, slaughtering animals or violence such as that would be much less likely to bother anybody because it happened all the time. Think of the weapons used for war, too. Instead of, for the most part, little bullet wounds, people would have their faces, arms, legs, etc. bludgeoned to bits and heads impaled and hacked off. Not to mention how closely people would have to get to kill one another (it's a lot different when you are just shooting at a silhouette 50 meters away as opposed to being within arms reach of each other). How often are people publicly beheaded or hanged nowadays?

snoop, I wonder if you've seen the controversial TED talk by Steven Pinker about how the world is getting less violent over time?

When is the last time you were laid, Dei?

Media is supersaturated with sex - nudity is only a subset of media sex. Nudity was big in the 70's and the 80's when studios were more willing to take big chances - and so was a different kind of violence. But styles have changed since then - the era of the antihero is long since over, directly facing the harsher aspects of sex and violense is gone along with it in favor of a much more family-friendly sort of stylized sex and violense. Could it have something to do with the massive rise of porn thanks to DVDs and then the internet? I don't know. Maybe also the more intense forms of violense - we can see totally brutal stuff on the net if we look for it - so the studios keep churning out processed pap oozing with a certain kind of stylized violence lite and sex lite that we've become totally accustomed to.

I think for one thing the big studios that run media hve become ever bigger businesses - in the 70's things were very different. Business models have skyrocketed unbelievably since then, and now it;'s all about opening weekend boxoffice receipts and each movie being bigger than the last. In this kind of environment risk-taking isn't encouraged.

Originally Posted by cmind

snoop, I wonder if you've seen the controversial TED talk by Steven Pinker about how the world is getting less violent over time?

I haven't, and in that diction it's hard to give a good answer because the statement "the world is getting less violent over time" is too broad. What does "less violent" mean? If one is shot and killed, that would be considered violent, but generally it would be considered less violent than being mauled and torn apart by, say, an animal. And does "less violent" connote lower numbers of violent altercations numerically or proportionally? We aren't dealing with constant world population counts so it would be important to make that distinction.

I don't consider slaughtering animals violence when used for the purpose of consumption. That's just life...

Yeah I think the growing inability to slaughter an animal is a result of a change in lifestyle and the decrease in violence worldwide is because murder has decreased due to the advent of the crime lab. Neither one correlate to the increasing exposure to violence our society receives. For instance, while violent crime has dropped, the coverage the news gives of violent crime has increased. There is less of it, but they're spending more time talking about it. That speaks volumes to me, not necessarily of a conspiracy to make the population tolerant of violence so much as a reckless pursuit of ratings and sales. But I also think there are plenty of aspects of society beside violence that sell and I'm puzzled by our addiction to violence compared to the continuing stigma against sex and nudity.

Originally Posted by snoop

I haven't, and in that diction it's hard to give a good answer because the statement "the world is getting less violent over time" is too broad. What does "less violent" mean? If one is shot and killed, that would be considered violent, but generally it would be considered less violent than being mauled and torn apart by, say, an animal. And does "less violent" connote lower numbers of violent altercations numerically or proportionally? We aren't dealing with constant world population counts so it would be important to make that distinction.

You could have just watched the talk...

Originally Posted by snoop

I haven't, and in that diction it's hard to give a good answer because the statement "the world is getting less violent over time" is too broad. What does "less violent" mean? If one is shot and killed, that would be considered violent, but generally it would be considered less violent than being mauled and torn apart by, say, an animal. And does "less violent" connote lower numbers of violent altercations numerically or proportionally? We aren't dealing with constant world population counts so it would be important to make that distinction.

I imagine Steven Pinker took the time to define all of that before giving a speech at TED.

Originally Posted by snoop

I haven't, and in that diction it's hard to give a good answer because the statement "the world is getting less violent over time" is too broad. What does "less violent" mean? If one is shot and killed, that would be considered violent, but generally it would be considered less violent than being mauled and torn apart by, say, an animal. And does "less violent" connote lower numbers of violent altercations numerically or proportionally? We aren't dealing with constant world population counts so it would be important to make that distinction.

This is pretty much my thought on the matter too.
Steven Pinker is an idiot. He always comes up with half-baked ideas and writes a book about them, and constantly makes baseless claims.

Originally Posted by tommo

This is pretty much my thought on the matter too.
Steven Pinker is an idiot. He always comes up with half-baked ideas and writes a book about them, and constantly makes baseless claims.

What's really funny though is that many of the questions posed by snoop were directly answered in the TED talk he clearly didn't bother to watch.

Dei, is it that you can't figure out why the rest of society is prone to violence, or why the rest of society isn't more like you?

Neither. My question is not why society loves violence. My question is why violence controls the market.

For example, why is it that violent crime has dropped but news coverage of violent crime has increased?

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Neither. My question is not why society loves violence.
My question is why violence controls the market.

Because society loves violence.

For example, why is it that violent crime has dropped but news coverage of violent crime has increased?

Dropped, where? What statistics have you been reading that the rest of us haven't?

Do you mean violence has dropped in those areas of the world you're paying attention to, or the globe over?

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

or why the rest of society isn't more like you?

Worldwide violent crime has been dropping steadily over the last century. Of course I think it has to do with your definition of violent crime, for instant I think the occupation of the middle east is a violent crime. But revenge killings have dropped significantly, along with theft related murders, etc. This is an average, this doesn't mean south central, LA or Kingston, Jamaica have less gang related murder. That's the thing about statistics, they're wide sweeping.

But if you poll the people, like they did in california a decade ago, most people will say the opposite, that violent crime has increased. And, in fact, news coverage of violent crime has increased. But your explanation is stupid. People do not just love violence, they also love sex and all sorts of other things, and yet the amount of media utilized to saturate our brains with sex is significantly lower than the amount of media used saturating our brains with violence.

Misreading the intention of my question doesn't change the facts. For one, I haven't even revealed what I want society to be like, so where do you get off even asking me that question? That's for a completely different thread. Stop being a douche.

For once I wasn't being a douche.

Misreading the intention of my question doesn't change the facts.

Neither does the common sense response I've provided.

People do not just love violence, they also love sex and all sorts of other things, and yet the amount of media utilized to saturate our brains with sex is significantly lower than the amount of media used saturating our brains with violence.

Well let me help you figure that out, as I've been laid more in the last 2 weeks than I have all year: Once you bust a nut, you want that ol' gal out your bed and in the kitchen. Now, once your tummy is full, sex is no longer on the brain. What comes next, lol?

Add this train of thought to the other [x] of the society that have just had sex, or aren't getting any all together and *POOF!* Tool-Vicarious - YouTube

Supply/demand, what's not to understand?

Sex is necessary for the continuation of a stable society, [human-on-human] violence is not.

Maintaining the status quo becomes more difficult if people get violent every time they disagree, both on an individual level, and on a societal level. Not only is it an ethical dilemma but it also causes more problems, which costs more time/money/effort, and overall is a greater threat to anyone who seeks to continue business as usual without any interference. Stability typically does not appreciate rule-breakers.

Regardless of any societal stigma surrounding sex, people can and will seek it out whenever and however they choose. Surely they must if a society is to continue. And although nudity in public form is usually frowned upon, I personally believe that overall society seems more open to talking about sex in all its forms than ever before. Increasingly references to it are found in music, television, movies, and even in everyday conversation.

The same is true for violence, the only difference being that members of a stable society ARE expected to engage in sexual activity whereas they are expected to NOT use violence. If they do choose to act violently they are in most cases acting outside the law, and therefore subject to punishment. The whole system of law (to me, at least) seems set up to prevent people from taking matters into their own hands (because that's a grey area that can get messy)..and instead encourages them to follow the rules based on the idea that if everyone does, everyone benefits.

So, if it is true that violent crimes are in general less common than in previous decades and/or centuries for various reasons...and if it is also true that the media fixates on violence as though such instances are more common than they really are...it seems to me that this fascination might be centered on the assumption that as humans we have an instinctive need for violence on some level.

I'm not asserting that assumption is true or not, mind you, but regardless...

If as citizens we are discouraged from acting violently in our own lives, perhaps it is thought that there is a need to have something with which to fill that gap. Whether it is fictionalized violence in movies/TV, or news of violence committed by others...indulging in either certainly seems less problematic than actually engaging in violent activity. Instead other more "acceptable" displays of aggression like sports and verbal harassment are encouraged as a way of acting out this hypothetical need for violence that we may or may not have.

In a lot of cases, the violence we see in TV/movies/video games seems to be glorifying the just, and villanizing the unjust. The same is true for news reports of crimes, where the victim is mourned for and the criminal is scorned. This might give the viewer the idea that violence is acceptable if it is for the sake of justice, but not acceptable if undertaken for any other reason. Such ideas would be beneficial to those in a position of power and authority for a couple reasons which start to veer off-topic...

But, if the media and/or the government were to actually encourage violence on any real level they would be making themselves more vulnerable in a number of ways. By proactively shaping our exposure to it, and simultaneously limiting the ways in which we can express it, they have a greater chance of protecting the status quo...and can make a quick buck on top of it.

Sex on the other hand...well I think its safe to say that regardless of what society, the media, or the government has to say about it...it doesn't make much difference to the individual. They will get it on however they see fit, even if it is considered deviant. I believe this is related to the fact that sex IS a basic human instinct, whereas I'm not entirely convinced that the same can be said for violence.

But who knows, I'm subject to the same propaganda that most others are, so I could have it all mixed up and not even know it.


EDIT: and just after I finished posting this I realized I had received an infraction for posting inappropriate images. Apparently a barely visible nipple and a bare ass cheek is considered pornographic, but felating bananas and jiggly-asses (as long as they are "covered" by thongs) is not. Lol rules.

When it comes to news, I think it's about creating fear, myself. I think fear glues people to the news, and sells more stories. THe less fear people live in, the less they care about what's on the news. People may like violence but I think that only resolves the issue of violence in games and films, and even then not really when you consider the facts. Postal 2, one of the most violent games I've ever loved, has terrible sales. It's not violence by itself. But more and more war games keep coming out teaching people how to kill each other and feel nothing. And greenhavoc your theory doesn't make any sense to me because someone's ability to get laid doesn't change the fact that a videogame with heavy amounts of violence is easier to sell to kids than one with a single pair of exposed breasts. The dissonance between the regulation of sex and violence is absolutely ridiculous.

My two cents?

Simple, society clogs our thoughts with distractions. Anything to keep us from realizing how powerful we truly are. Although no one knows for sure the true motives, most intuitive individuals have their theories.

I know how powerful a human being is/can be. A lot more powerful than society and media will ever reveal. For if they were to lift the veil on our abilities, it would be at their demise. Control would no longer prevail, nor do I believe anyone should have control over anybody else. Society more than succeeds in instilling fear tactics in every one of us and it is our responsibility as free thinkers to remember who we are.

Violence plays a huge role in fear and negativity. Once you're programmed into this mindset, they have you by the sac, and they get you before your balls drop.

I see an inkling of difference in my generation and I hope we wake the fuck up soon, not a moment too soon.

You, I like you. And that's only your second post here.

I think you're 100% correct. And control only causes people to feel, besides sometimes fearful, like lesser humans.
Even on the small scale such as in work environments or schools.
It's in everybody's interest to not exert control over others.

I too think there has been change in our generation, however I've also been wondering whether this may just be that we have more contact with these types of people through the internet; confirmation bias.
Although the good thing is it should naturally spread since other people that aren't like this will have more contact with people that do have the right mindset, since pretty much everyone uses the internet now.

You might find this interesting, OD.

Military movie censorship

Also, there are those who are trying to lift the (quite dubious) 'propaganda ban', so that these (somewhat) covert tactics can be used more openly on the public.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/co...propaganda-ban

Absolutely. The internet is a wonderful tool for connection. It's a man-made dimension of reality. Incredible really, if you think about it.
Communication is crucial for spreading awareness, and it can also be used for evil as we have all witnessed. No different than any other realm or reality.

I'm hoping I am correct in my many observations of my generation because I have a strong sense of ultimate collapse in our futures.
This is shoved down our throats as a scary and terrifying event, but I see it as Mother Earth purging out the toxic elements.
After the chaos, peace and harmony radiate.

Sounds like a sugar-coated religious fairytale, but it is no different than other aspects of life.

If you get drunk, you have what seems to be a great time. You spend hours upchucking and getting rid of the ill substance.
You have a period of rest and recuperation and then you feel like your old self again.

Mother is an alcoholic in this analogy and we are the alcohol. When She's ready, I believe She will quit the shit cold turkey unleashing an abundance of healing at once.
No 10 steps here, it's too late.

What horseshit, you people speak of control as if it's something that once relinquished will magically grant you super-human powers. What exactly do you think the human race is capable of that [it] isn't already achieving, every single day? For Christ sake, we just went to mars.

My 2 cents: It's usually the people who have no sense of balance, or an appreciation for order that spew hippie nonsense every time they open their mouth; a butthurt subconscious, for whatever reason.

Some of you seem to believe that violence is taught, and that we would suddenly have no desire to destroy if 'they' would just allow us to live up to our full potential.

Pretty much.