On Violence

[Belacqua]

The word violence is not the word I would use. Yes, it is justified to use force in this scenario. However, at least in the American system, you are not justified in killing him or maming him. I would assume the law allows you to use only enough force to stop the act. (Of course, the jury may be completely fine with you killing him.) So I would consider the unjust act of force to be examples of violence.

This isn't an arbitrary distinction. The word violence, even though it refers to force, still carries a negative sense. No one hears the word violence and infers a neutral or positive use of force. The force used when teams play sports, for example, is not the same as the violence used when teams start physically fighting.

We seem to have moved from violence being morally "verboten", to it being morally relative, but then that's true of morality generally, as it seems to be both subjective and relative. We are part of nature, and nature "uses" violence as part of evolution. That we have evolved brains capable of self awareness, and thanks to agricultural and industrial revolutions, have the time to examine moral choices, and if we choose, be appalled by that violence, is another matter.

It is natural that people are born without language. But it is natural that by a certain age people acquire language. Language requires symbols, concepts, abstractions. So it is natural for people to use abstractions and many other things that they aren't born with.

It is natural that someone who is fearful or uncomfortable will try to improve his conditions. The gradual increase in technological solutions means that this natural tendency becomes more effective over time.

Drawing a line between natural and unnatural in human affairs is arbitrary. It is natural that we fly in airplanes, because that is the kind of thing that people do -- not when they're born, not in the 13th century, but, given time, when they can.

It is also natural for us to reflect on our actions and ponder what is good and what is bad. It may be that some natural urges we have we also, due to our nature, seek to suppress. 

Unfortunately this leaves human beings with an unsolvable paradox, in that it is natural for us to have virtually unlimited desires, yet also natural for us to hope for a peaceful and secure society which demands the suppression of many desires.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Unfortunately this leaves human beings with an unsolvable paradox, in that it is natural for us to have virtually unlimited desires, yet also natural for us to hope for a peaceful and secure society which demands the suppression of many desires.

Certainly, as Freud has said, "It is impossible to overlook the extent to which civilization is built upon a renunciation of instinct."

And this is why I've called violence a non-strategy. Because it is in many ways rock bottom, the default mode in nature, and the first thing a child learns they possess. Violence is only a strategy to the extent that anything one does, or doesn't do, can be considered strategy, which doesn't say much. Even in war, few would consider all out violence to be strategic. Rather, strategy is born when you begin to be selective and precise in battle, placing restraints and conditions on violence. Strategy is knowing when and where NOT to be violent.

[The Grand Nudger]

Children learn to observe, manipulate, cooperate and exploit pretty early. They're working you long before they can properly hold a knife. The organized violence that might be critical to manufacturing consent in a state like ours seems quite a bit more sophisticated and took us a long damned time to figure out, as a species, I mean. Obviously we're quick studies in life.

[Rev. Rye]

I was just noticing that while violence may not be the best path to power, it sure does comprise a lot of our entertainment in movies and television.

It may be in the nature of art, but I think there is a certain truth to the idea that many, men particular, like violence and admire violent people.

Look at the recent admiration for Luigi Mangione, the HCU executive shooter.

Another example is rape porn. Why do people find watching someone raped to be titillating?

I’ve long known that there’s something in humanity that loves violence. Something that longs for an excuse to be violent. And I figure that celebrating the slaughter of a CEO as corrupt as the one who got shot is plenty for most people. I’ve written about this before and called it “The Dexter Hypothesis.”

As for the popularity of rape porn, I suspect that a lot of it has to do with sexual repression (either on a societal or a personal level). On the perpetrator’s side, I can find quite a few examples that can explain it, like from Nazi Germany, where porn was banned, but Die Sturmer’s constant flow of lurid stories of Aryan girls getting raped and murdered by Jews (still somehow going even as most of the area’s Jewish population was in no position to sexually assault anyone) were readily available. Or, a more recent example, Max “MrGirl” Karson (the man infamous for defending controversial 2020 Netflix film Cuties for all the wrong reasons):



Apparently, his mother (a closeted lesbian at the time) told him at an early age that when a man has sex with a woman, the woman inevitably gets hurt. He seems to have internalized that message and, frankly, given how much of a sexual dumpster fire he is, it seems like he decided “ Thou call'dst me dog before thou hadst a cause; But, since I am a dog, beware my fangs.”

I can talk more about what I understand about the victim’s side of things, but my belated birthday dinner just arrived.

[Angrboda]

The OP reminds me of a passage from the Tao Te Ching, though the sentiment isn't exclusive to Taoism.

Knowing others is wisdom;
Knowing the self is enlightenment.
Mastering others requires force;
Mastering the self needs strength.

He who knows he has enough is rich.
Perseverance is a sign of willpower.
He who stays where he is endures.
To die but not to perish is to be eternally present.

Tao Te Ching, Ch. 33

[Belacqua]

Unfortunately this leaves human beings with an unsolvable paradox, in that it is natural for us to have virtually unlimited desires, yet also natural for us to hope for a peaceful and secure society which demands the suppression of many desires.

Certainly, as Freud has said, "It is impossible to overlook the extent to which civilization is built upon a renunciation of instinct."

And this is why I've called violence a non-strategy. Because it is in many ways rock bottom, the default mode in nature, and the first thing a child learns they possess. Violence is only a strategy to the extent that anything one does, or doesn't do, can be considered strategy, which doesn't say much. Even in war, few would consider all out violence to be strategic. Rather, strategy is born when you begin to be selective and precise in battle, placing restraints and conditions on violence. Strategy is knowing when and where NOT to be violent.

Well spotted! 

I was actually thinking of Freud when I wrote this. But some people here hate it if I attribute ideas to the really smart people. 

I think the instinct toward violence also helps explain why so many people are eager to justify it, and to say that it is a workable strategy. "Good violence," of course, being whatever supports the goals that I approve of. 

There's also the issue of short-term vs. long-term benefit. What seems to be a success in the immediate aftermath of violence is often erased by the longer-term effects. So for example, shortly after 9-11 George Bush gave Osama bin Ladin everything he wanted -- US bases out of Saudi Arabia, and the whole Arab world angry about US military aggression. The Bin Ladin Construction Company even turned a profit for the first time in years. But of course in the longer term it gave the US license to wreak havoc, with terrible results. Millions of lives ruined in Iraq for no reason. The Taliban in complete control of Afghanistan. Bin Ladin's strategy failed, and so did America's afterward -- unless America's real strategy was just to spread chaos and suffering. 

All of which makes me think that we can take a step back and think about what goal people were REALLY pursuing, vs. the goals they stated on the news. Halliburton made a fortune, which is what Cheney was after all along. In Ukraine, Larry Fink's shareholders have cleaned up, while guaranteeing hardship for Ukrainians. It may be that violence IS a successful strategy for people who are happy to harm others to get money. And for them this is success, while for anyone with a sense of morality it is just evil.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Look at the recent admiration for Luigi Mangione, the HCU executive shooter.  

Here's something odd I've noticed. In many ways, Brian Thompson died long before he was killed. And what was killed was the symbol, or category, of "Healthcare CEO." The admiration you find online seems to exist at this level of abstraction. And perhaps that in itself is not surprising, we tend to find this "dehumanization" of the individual for the symbolic in most places where violence becomes justified. It is almost a precondition for it. 


You can see this when you ask people why Thompson was the bad guy. They'll say something unsatisfying like, well he killed millions of people. And, who knows, that may be the case, but what we do know is that the person saying that doesn't know if that's true. They won't be able to name a specific person that was killed. They won't be able to name any policy or decision that Thompson made. They will say he killed with a briefcase, and not a gun, but still not be able to present the chain of events by which that was done. I'm not even sure Luigi himself had a reason for targeting him specifically, I guess in time we'll find out.

Because in the end, it wasn't Brian Thompson that was killed, it was the symbol of CEO. And we all know what we think about them.

[Belacqua]

I was just noticing that while violence may not be the best path to power, it sure does comprise a lot of our entertainment in movies and television.

I don't know if it's really been increasing, or whether I just notice it more. 

But A LOT of mainstream entertainment involves the depiction of violent killing as a source of aesthetic pleasure. 

Some movies, like John Wick, make killing the whole subject. TV shows, like Reacher, teach us that all problems are solved through punching. 

And of course it's pretty much a universal message that the hero of a show is the one who makes the most effective use of violence. 

Partly I think this is a lowest-common-denominator thing. Solving problems through negotiation doesn't make for fun TV. Even Star Trek, where they have fantasy levels of technology, frequently climaxes with a fist fight. 

But I also think it's partly intentional (and I realize here I'm verging on Conspiracy Theory). If we are conditioned to see and enjoy violence every day on the screen, we are more likely to accept it in real life. Every international problem has a military solution, etc.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The OP reminds me of a passage from the Tao Te Ching, though the sentiment isn't exclusive to Taoism.

Knowing others is wisdom;
Knowing the self is enlightenment.
Mastering others requires force;
Mastering the self needs strength.

He who knows he has enough is rich.
Perseverance is a sign of willpower.
He who stays where he is endures.
To die but not to perish is to be eternally present.

Tao Te Ching, Ch. 33

Beauty writ large.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I was just noticing that while violence may not be the best path to power, it sure does comprise a lot of our entertainment in movies and television.

I don't know if it's really been increasing, or whether I just notice it more. 

But A LOT of mainstream entertainment involves the depiction of violent killing as a source of aesthetic pleasure. 

Some movies, like John Wick, make killing the whole subject. TV shows, like Reacher, teach us that all problems are solved through punching. 

And of course it's pretty much a universal message that the hero of a show is the one who makes the most effective use of violence. 

Partly I think this is a lowest-common-denominator thing. Solving problems through negotiation doesn't make for fun TV. Even Star Trek, where they have fantasy levels of technology, frequently climaxes with a fist fight. 

But I also think it's partly intentional (and I realize here I'm verging on Conspiracy Theory). If we are conditioned to see and enjoy violence every day on the screen, we are more likely to accept it in real life. Every international problem has a military solution, etc.

The pornography of violence has been a phenomenon for at least 45 years on television here in America. We can show murders on "Law and Order" but Heaven forbid we show two people making love ... but murder is very small statistically while making love is, well, incredibly common.

Our taboos say a lot about us.