Violence as a form of entertainment is as old as humanity itself

(December 15, 2024 at 9:48 pm)Belacqua Wrote: But A LOT of mainstream entertainment involves the depiction of violent killing as a source of aesthetic pleasure. 

Here's one reason why I think people like to watch violent television. And it is true of all fiction: It allows us to experience emotions at zero cost. We can experience tragedy, a romance, an adventure from a safe distance. And there is some utility in that. For example, a lot of women watch true crime documentaries, perhaps because it is the sort of thing women fear and are victims of. It functions as a sort of sandbox for the mind, a practice simulation.

Now, I don't know if TV violence universally desensitizes us to real life violence. At a personal level, it hasn't for me. I remember when I started a paramedic program right after high school, and we had to watch footage of real emergencies. The one I remember most was of a man that blew his face off with a shotgun. That was a very traumatic thing for me to watch at the time. And I'm sure everyone has stumbled upon images online they wish they hadn't, be it the bodies of the people that jumped on 9/11, or any other act of violence.

I think something in your brain knows when it is no longer just pretend. And when it realizes it's watching real violence, it no longer finds it as entertaining or enjoyable.

(December 15, 2024 at 11:15 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: [...] and we had to watch footage of real emergencies. The one I remember most was of a man that blew his face off with a shotgun. That was a very traumatic thing for me to watch at the time.

I'm pretty sure I had to watch that same footage in my EMT classes. His face was split open from the jawline up, as if the shotgun tilted forward just a moment and so his brain survived, he was trying to talk gurgling through the miasma of blood, and you could see his throat trying to work.

There's also another aspect of violence you haven't touched upon in this thread, that of violence inflicted by the world, or circumstances, that catches us up all the same. We think of PTSD as "oh, that's something soldiers come back with", but I'd be willing to bet that by far the large majority of PTSD cases (diagnosed or not) come from people simply seeing things we aren't built for, like seeing someone turned inside-out in a car-crash, or a hand poking out of the rubble of an earthquake.

Not all violence is intentional, nor is all violence a result of human action, intentional or not. I've been exposed to this as a first responder, maybe you have as well, but that violence is blind and aimless. What, though, does it mean?

(December 15, 2024 at 11:15 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:

---

---

Violence as a form of entertainment is as old as humanity itself

Oh no, that's not violence, that's just force (maybe because there's prizes involved, or because there's rules, or because people pay to watch, or...something). It's like if you beat Bob to death with a hammer to stop him from doing A Bad Thing, you're simply employing force, not violence. If you beat Bob to death with a hammer because you like the squishy-crunchy noises, that's violence.

Of course, Bob is dead either way, so, you know, fuck euphemisms.

Boru

(December 16, 2024 at 2:48 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: There's also another aspect of violence you haven't touched upon in this thread, that of violence inflicted by the world, or circumstances, that catches us up all the same. We think of PTSD as "oh, that's something soldiers come back with", but I'd be willing to bet that by far the large majority of PTSD cases (diagnosed or not) come from people simply seeing things we aren't built for, like seeing someone turned inside-out in a car-crash, or a hand poking out of the rubble of an earthquake.

I can remember reading once about some psychologist who worked with combat veterans with two diagnoses: PTSD and Autism spectrum disorder. You’d think that their PTSD was related to their combat experience. It wasn’t. Their experiences in childhood, especially with schoolmates who spoke friendly with them one minute and stabbed them in the back the next. They managed to come into the service already with PTSD. I remember one saying that at least they knew who was on their side in the war. 

I don’t remember who this psychologist was, but as an autistic person with a lot of trauma in his life, I have zero trouble seeing this as plausible.

(December 15, 2024 at 11:15 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:

---

---

Violence as a form of entertainment is as old as humanity itself

The first image you show, the 19th century painting by Gérôme, is certainly a picture of violence. The gladiator fights were famous and definitely violent.

The second, Minoan Bull-leaping, was not violent. It was dangerous, it didn't aim at injury. From Wikipedia:

Quote:Bull-leaping (Ancient Greek: ταυροκαθάψια, taurokathapsia[1]) is a term for various types of non-violent bull fighting. 

emphasis added. The Cretan fresco is shown just to the right of that sentence.

The third image, the 6th century BC marble relief, is sports. Is Olympic wrestling considered violent? If done right, both wrestlers went home uninjured.

The painting from the Chroniques de Froissart shows another kind of sport. It was also dangerous, and was partly a training for war, but the people in the picture are doing sports, not trying to kill each other. 

I suppose that if you want to call American Football and that type of thing violent, then sports are violent. (I would agree that boxing is violent.) 

So of the four, the best example of what you're trying to prove comes from a time which many think of as being a high point in civilization. The Roman Empire at its peak enjoyed watching violent death. Some people might say that this form of entertainment gives the lie to the idea that it was actually a civilized time. 

Still, the number of simulated violent deaths we see in movies and TV far surpass what any Roman citizen would have seen in a lifetime.

(December 16, 2024 at 5:24 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Oh no, that's not violence, that's just force (maybe because there's prizes involved, or because there's rules, or because people pay to watch, or...something).

The evolution of sports, perhaps better than anything else, illustrates the point that violence has steadily decreased across history and that progress has steadily increased. No one alive today would classify the events at the Colosseum to be nonviolent, nor would they confuse those actions with today's pacified sports arenas. 

The Colosseum was clearly a spectacle of mass cruelty by today's standards. And humanity has gone from enjoying those spectacles, such as people being torn by wild animals, to showing concern over football players having TBI and CTE. Violence has decreased to the point where even dodgeball has been banned in many schools because it is deemed too aggressive for today's kids.

At the same rate, there has also been clear humanitarian progress in sports. Safety measures and equipment have increased. Concerns over doping and drugs have increased. Technology has improved. And even gender participation and inclusivity has improved, to the point where one of the most controversial topics today... is whether we allow a transwomen to play in women's sports.

Would you feel compelled to a society which would not or could not do good violence/force?

(December 16, 2024 at 7:20 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(December 15, 2024 at 11:15 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:

---

---

Violence as a form of entertainment is as old as humanity itself

The first image you show, the 19th century painting by Gérôme, is certainly a picture of violence. The gladiator fights were famous and definitely violent.

The second, Minoan Bull-leaping, was not violent. It was dangerous, it didn't aim at injury. From Wikipedia:

Quote:Bull-leaping (Ancient Greek: ταυροκαθάψια, taurokathapsia[1]) is a term for various types of non-violent bull fighting. 

emphasis added. The Cretan fresco is shown just to the right of that sentence.

The third image, the 6th century BC marble relief, is sports. Is Olympic wrestling considered violent? If done right, both wrestlers went home uninjured.

The painting from the Chroniques de Froissart shows another kind of sport. It was also dangerous, and was partly a training for war, but the people in the picture are doing sports, not trying to kill each other. 

I suppose that if you want to call American Football and that type of thing violent, then sports are violent. (I would agree that boxing is violent.) 

So of the four, the best example of what you're trying to prove comes from a time which many think of as being a high point in civilization. The Roman Empire at its peak enjoyed watching violent death. Some people might say that this form of entertainment gives the lie to the idea that it was actually a civilized time. 

Still, the number of simulated violent deaths we see in movies and TV far surpass what any Roman citizen would have seen in a lifetime.

1. The second, of the bull fight, was supposed to depict more violent notions of bullfighting which also existed at that time, but I couldn't find a good picture of that so I used it as a stand in as from depiction they look similar.

2. The second one was me trying to show an example of pankration, but again I was having a hard time finding a good picture, so I just settled for a depiction of wrestling, as in sculpture they look pretty much the same. Also, Greek wrestling was quite brutal in its own right. Heck, breaking fingers was legal early on, as was ankle dislocation. Also,  pankration  and wrestling were common forms of entertainment outside the Olympics, and it's a simulation of violence. The fact no one died is aside from the point. 

3. The point of jousting was to knock your opponent off their horse, which was quite dangerous with knights often winding up dead and the point is not killing, it's simulated  violence in general, even if it's simulated violence. I mean no one really dies in John Wick, but it's a simulation  of violence 

4. The amount of death seen is aside the fact  that people have always used violence, or at least, simulation of violence, as a means of entertainment.

(December 16, 2024 at 11:49 am)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:

(December 16, 2024 at 7:20 am)Belacqua Wrote: The first image you show, the 19th century painting by Gérôme, is certainly a picture of violence. The gladiator fights were famous and definitely violent.

The second, Minoan Bull-leaping, was not violent. It was dangerous, it didn't aim at injury. From Wikipedia:


emphasis added. The Cretan fresco is shown just to the right of that sentence.

The third image, the 6th century BC marble relief, is sports. Is Olympic wrestling considered violent? If done right, both wrestlers went home uninjured.

The painting from the Chroniques de Froissart shows another kind of sport. It was also dangerous, and was partly a training for war, but the people in the picture are doing sports, not trying to kill each other. 

I suppose that if you want to call American Football and that type of thing violent, then sports are violent. (I would agree that boxing is violent.) 

So of the four, the best example of what you're trying to prove comes from a time which many think of as being a high point in civilization. The Roman Empire at its peak enjoyed watching violent death. Some people might say that this form of entertainment gives the lie to the idea that it was actually a civilized time. 

Still, the number of simulated violent deaths we see in movies and TV far surpass what any Roman citizen would have seen in a lifetime.

1. The second, of the bull fight, was supposed to depict more violent notions of bullfighting which also existed at that time, but I couldn't find a good picture of that so I used it as a stand in as from depiction they look similar.

2. The second one was me trying to show an example of pankration, but again I was having a hard time finding a good picture, so I just settled for a depiction of wrestling, as in sculpture they look pretty much the same. Also, Greek wrestling was quite brutal in its own right. Heck, breaking fingers was legal early on, as was ankle dislocation. Also,  pankration  and wrestling were common forms of entertainment outside the Olympics, and it's a simulation of violence. The fact no one died is aside from the point. 

3. The point of jousting was to knock your opponent off their horse, which was quite dangerous with knights often winding up dead and the point is not killing, it's simulated  violence in general, even if it's simulated violence. I mean no one really dies in John Wick, but it's a simulation  of violence 

4. The amount of death seen is aside the fact  that people have always used violence, or at least, simulation of violence, as a means of entertainment.

Another bit about Greek wrestling: if one of the contestants broke a rule - no testicle grabbing for instance - the referee would beat him with a whip until he stopped.

Seems kinda violent to me.

Boru