Violence as entertainment... why?

[ColdBlooded]

There is something I have been thinking about, but I may not word it properly to make it sound like there is a debate, so just a heads up. Or maybe this topic is just stupid or misinformed, misunderstood or pointless, whatever... just tell me what you think?

All of Earth or almost all of it wants to enter a state of peace and diplomacy where violent means of attaining goals are frowned upon, the society "where violence is not the answer". We are not at that state but we are on the way to that state, always employing diplomatic conflict resolution whenever we can.

Why do we still get entertainment? I'm not trying to make it sound like a paradox because I don't think it is, but I don't think a society that wants to get peace would allow media to portray violence solely for entertainment purposes. Isn't that a step backwards from that goal? Why do even some peaceful individuals enjoy a good catharsis that comes from fake violence whether is throwing an explosive barrel at a korean soldier or letting Bruce Willis shoot people in the face while yelling "yippee kaiyai, mootherfucker!"?

I'm not one of those "ban violence" individuals, it's just something I'm wondering what other escapists think about.

 

[Marter]

I'm going to go with the argument that since entertainment like that is fictional, it allows us to do things without any consequences. People would rather watch violence on TV or at the theatre, get their pleasure from that, and then not feel the need to act violently in real life.

That's my guess.

 

[ace_of_something]

violence usually is bred from some form of conflict. Conflict is the essence of drama. So ya know; even in situations like you're giving it has some semblance of interest.

 

[monstersquad]

You're statement is part of the illusion that we as human beings are civilised. Entertainment violence is an integral part of all of our cultures. It exists so we dont stab people in the throat because we have to wait in line at McDonald's.

 

[trooper6]

Just as we are becoming less violent as society, so, too, is our entertainment becoming less violent. (See the book: Savage Pasttimes: A Cultural HIstory of Violent Entertainment by Harold Schechter).

What did we used to have for entertainment? Not simulated violence, but actual violence. Gladiatorial games, public executions, public corporal punishment and torture, cock fighting, bare knuckle boxing, watching battles while picnicking, dueling...all sorts of actual violence. I mean, have you seen any of the postcards of lynchings that people would send to each other in the 1920s?

Nowadays we play some video games. Way less violent than before.

 

[MetroidNut]

Other than the arguments about stress release, and the fact that most people can separate entertainment from real violence, there's that whole "free speech" thing. Banning violence in entertainment would, in America, be simply unthinkable!

Unless it's them newfangled videogames, because they turn children into murderers.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Well, Glados put it as "Homour is tragedy plus time". But it isn't necessarily time, it is more accurately "tragedy + distancing", which can be time, it can be fiction, it can be that it is happening to someone else, anything that makes the tragedy less personal/immediate. So watching characters (not us) kill each other (not us or anyone we know) is a source of entertainment beause it is situationally tragic, yet with little to no actual connection (so massive distancing). And tragedy doesn't just mean violence, it can be embarrassment (laughing at someone else's public failings), anxiety, awkwardness, anything that we don't want to happen to us.

EDIT: So if you want violence to stop being entertaining to some people, you either have to make it a non-tragedy (so violence has to be the accepted norm, which is conter-productive, or remove violence from society so that people don't understand it to be a tragedy), make it so much of a tragedy that it collapses its own humour (by making it a collossal tragedy, it really 'hits home' removing the distancing aspect, thereby removing the entertainment), or you have to somehow make it so that tragedy + distancing =/= humour.

 

[Merkavar]

for me its cause i find it fun and enjoyable to slice through waves of enemies. also i cant do this in real life so games are an outlet for violent fantasies

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Our natural blood-lust is taking form in tame ways, why insist there is a problem?

We're the exact same creatures that were screaming for blood in Roman arenas a mere blink-of-an-eye ago. We're never going to live in utopian society where violence simply doesn't exist, such idealism is absurd and only afforded by our sheltered lives.

We're not born sick, with a struggle towards wellness. It's the expectations that we have created for ourselves that are warped, and we live our lives in internal conflict because of it. Accept the human experience for what it is, you could be pragmatic about making changes for an arguably objective "better", but talk about how things "should be" is worthless...and frankly unsubstantiated in every case.

 

[Impluse_101]

We all just LOVE watching people hurting eachother.

Is one of the many reasons I do believe.

 

[Karakasa]

When the human race started we killed for food after that need vanished we still had violence hardwired in our minds which is why the coliseum Rome we started having more wars more frequently (WWI,WWII). So in short we should be glad we have violence in TV, movies and video games, because there the only things stopping us from killing each other.

 

[Scabadus]

Because violence is fun.

No I'm not some insane psychopath who tortures small animals on the weekends and with my thinking mind I approve of diplomacy. But that one human who tried to sit down with a sabertooth tiger (correct spelling where I'm sitting, shush) and reason with it ended up as dinner while the guy who loved violence was away finding a really big rock.

Vioence and Running Away are our two most basic instincts, even above our sex drive. After all if we don't have sex for a week our children don't get born for a while, if we're dead our children are never born. They're what we fall back on and society looks down on running away, even in the diplomatic age we look down on running away and leaving others to suffer.

So we made some really violent entertainment, and we love it.

 

[badgersprite]

I'm going to go with the argument that since entertainment like that is fictional, it allows us to do things without any consequences. People would rather watch violence on TV or at the theatre, get their pleasure from that, and then not feel the need to act violently in real life.

That's my guess.

Precisely my thoughts. Also, most people never engage in anything violent in real life so the violence they see in entertainment has no real meaning to them. We know it's fake and it's so far removed from our normal experience that we don't associate it with any real world violence.

Mind you, there's also more simple reasons than that. Certain types of violence, like martial arts or chivalric, medieval fantasy, or even soldiers in our armed forces have a sense of idealised honour, glory and heroism attached to them. We don't have any desire to go and do these things in real life, but we're brought up to idolise people who do fight and engage in violence in certain circumstances. Superheroes, for example, or Power Rangers. I don't think of these shows as particularly violent, but I can't say there isn't a huge part of me that just geeks out when I get to play some kind of ancient warrior or ninja or superhero. Completely separate from real life, but still something that's kind of ingrained in our culture.

 

[Vault101]

There is something I have been thinking about, but I may not word it properly to make it sound like there is a debate, so just a heads up. Or maybe this topic is just stupid or misinformed, misunderstood or pointless, whatever... just tell me what you think?

All of Earth or almost all of it wants to enter a state of peace and diplomacy where violent means of attaining goals are frowned upon, the society "where violence is not the answer". We are not at that state but we are on the way to that state, always employing diplomatic conflict resolution whenever we can.

Why do we still get entertainment? I'm not trying to make it sound like a paradox because I don't think it is, but I don't think a society that wants to get peace would allow media to portray violence solely for entertainment purposes. Isn't that a step backwards from that goal? Why do even some peaceful individuals enjoy a good catharsis that comes from fake violence whether is throwing an explosive barrel at a korean soldier or letting Bruce Willis shoot people in the face while yelling "yippee kaiyai, mootherfucker!"?

I'm not one of those "ban violence" individuals, it's just something I'm wondering what other escapists think about.

because Violence is just soo much fun!! (seriously Kill Bill!)

that said however experiencing violence in a game or movie its completley different (and from a technical perspective they ARE very differnt, guns dont make the same noises ect...)

I see somones head sliced off with a Katana creating a blood fountain its like *giggle* awsome!

I see somone hacked to death with a Katana in real life...not so awsome, Im probably traumatised

 

[FalloutJack]

Violence as entertainment as opposed to violence in real life. Doesn't that sound worthwhile?

 

[Kortney]

I never understood people who think violence is funny. It's not at all. Nor should it be used as the primary source of entertainment. I was raised in a war though, so my perspective is completely skewered. I've seen people be massacred for no reason and I've seen serious violence first hand - so my opinion isn't exactly representative of the mindset of most people.