Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 14, 2012.
I'm sorry, you're blaming liberals for the problem with American gun culture?
We had that conversation, in 1999. We decided that the ones blaming everything on video games and rock stars were full of crap.
Honesty ain't what it used to be.
Yeah, the studies on fake violence vs. people committing real violence are very flawed and/or incomplete.
The thing is, the loop has to be broken somewhere. And it simply won't be broken on the production side of it. For all of Hollywood's BS about its social values, the truth is that they're hard-nosed capitalist businessmen who produce what they think will sell. If people stop going to the likes of Django Unchained and start buying DVD sets of Little House on the Prairie in record numbers, then before too long we're going to get less stuff like Django and more stuff like Prairie. But it has to be us that do it, because Hollywood just won't do it on its own.
I don't know if anyone has posted this video yet, but it does have a valid point to it:
All of these celebrities have enough "principle" to appear in a five-minute video, but I'll believe their commitment to this cause is geanuine the minute any of the has enough principle to walk away from a multi-million dollar paycheck because they don't want to contribute any more to the culture of violence in our society.
The loop has to be broken somewhere, and if it's going to be broken anywhere it has to be with us, because it won't be with them.
Your argument suggests to me a fairly flawed understanding of market-driven economics. You're suggesting, in effect, that we drop demand to create a supply surplus and price dis-equilibrium which in turn would lower the supply of violent media until a new price point is discovered, which is markedly less cinematic violence.
I just don't buy it. The Hobbit, despite being soulless and bland, is plenty violent only with melee weapons. So you would either have to limit all violence, and argue a sword-fight is as conducive to the cultural mindset as a gunfight; or you would have to come up with a compelling argument as to why cultures that aren't exposed to violent films - be they melee or firearm based violent films - are still capable of acts of extraordinary barbarism (Darfur, for one).
It's in human nature to be violent. The point of civilisation is to constraint that nature. Somehow, in a uniquely American phenomenon, that constraint has been loosened. I doubt banning violent films or games would impact that.
Home taping didn't kill music, video nasties didn't turn all 70s and 80s kids into serial killers or mass murderers.
I agree that American culture celebrates violence; guns are glorified too much, but it's symptomatic of the violent gun culture. I don't believe gun crime is 'normalised' by films, music and computer games to any measurable extent. Other countries make violent films, music and games (as well as importing masses of American products) but don't have the rates of gun related death endured by the USA.
Little House On The Prairie? How old are you?
Sure seems like it.
Bwahaha it shows clips from a Parks and Recreation episode where someone gets shot in the head by an idiot. Real glorification of gun violence.
Parks and Recreation?? That's the example they could find?!
If we had something like the 2nd Amendment, we might. It's just a toxic combination.
I think you're arguing in good faith here, so I want to make sure to clarify this argument, because it is a subtle one.
My argument is simply that incrementalism breeds absolutism, and destroys trust in good faith. People who don't want to give an inch on gun rights because they don't trust the other side are not simply being crazy or extremist to hold that position - the other side has given them ample reason not to trust them or believe that they're approaching the problem in good faith. They've seen too many times when one inch given to liberals turned into two, then ten, then a hundred, then a thousand - all slowly and in pieces over the course of years.
What I want to make clear, then, is that my argument isn't about liberalism as a set of ideas per se, but about a certain strategy that liberals have used with great success over the past few decades, and about the unintended effects of that strategy. Anyone, however, could use that strategy - it doesn't matter what ideology is behind it.
I also want to make clear that I am in no way suggesting that America's gun culture exists because of liberals or their use of this strategy; but rather that the use of it has made people who are in that culture, and who might ordinarily be somewhat more open to compromise, less willing to extend the trust that compromise requires. Again, if someone doesn't believe that the other side is telling the truth about what they really want or what their ultimate goal is - and worse, if they have good reason not to - then why should anyone evince shock when they seem unwilling to negotiate?
Mmmm... Nope, sorry, still looks like your blaming liberals.
I don't think the 2nd amendment is bad in itself; it's the modern interpretation of it that's the problem.
As I posted earlier: The NRA convention of 1977 had a lot to do with how the 2nd amendment has been abused by those who really ought to have never been given any power. Unfortunately for the sporting types they lost that argument and now any conversation about guns inevitably leads to histrionics on both sides.
You heard it here... the answer to all our problem--Little House on the Prairie.
You're applying the economics of tangible goods to non-tangible ones. Apples and oranges, methinks. If people did stop going to see violent movies, are you suggesting that the local multiplex would simply start charging less for ticket prices to violent movies until they filled the theaters? That's just not how show business works.
Same with games. If nonviolent games start selling and violent games start not selling, developers will put their money and resources into developing nonviolent games, because they'd rather develop something that will sell well at a normal price than something they have to discount to move off the shelves.
If we stop paying for media that glorifies violence, we'll get less of it. That's the bottom line.
This suggests that all violence in all media is essentially the same, which it isn't. Some depictions of violence clearly glorify it, others don't. Inglourious Basterds and The Killing Fields are both movies about war that have a lot of violence in them, but are they remotely comparable in terms of tone, or in how they may make one feel about using violence to solve problems?
LoTR is primarily a high fantasy adventure that has some violence in it (and a prominent lecture about mercy and nonviolence along the way). In no way is it comparable to the likes of Django Unchained.
I don't argue that violent media is the only way a culture can glorify violence, just that it is a very effective way to do so. In other words, you don't need violent movies to have a violent culture, but it helps.
I suppose it doesn't occur to you that you find watching someone getting their brains blown out on TV as the source of an inoffensive laugh may be an example of precisely the problem we're talking about, does it?
Dishonest argument - oversimplifying my assertion to the point of caricature, then using it as a straw man. Fail.
If you lack the subtlety to be able to understand my point, that's not my problem. Good rhetoric and logic courses abound. Take one.
Besides, you say that like there's something automatically wrong with blaming liberals for things. When, where, and to the extent that liberals are to blame for things, I blame them. And I do the same with conservatives. Too many people in this day and age use "My side good, their side bad!" as a substitute for knowledge and critical thinking.
Well, your argument does hinge on a squeaky clean wholesome gag-inducing show from the 70's. one can't help but treat it as a joke. Bonus: your argument does nothing to solve the problem of gun violence and might even increase it if we start making more shows like Little House. i know I'd wanna kill whoever thought that kind of show would be a good idea to replicate.
Which gets studiously ignored by the crowd that has their "soulless" reviews already written before they see the film...
Except that it doesn't "hinge" on that at all, but is simply a minor example I used to illustrate a point.
Anyhow, I'm perfectly happy to debate people who are going to approach me in good faith, honestly, and with the intellectual capacity to understand my arguments (as I believe Ender_Sai is doing here, for example), but I'm simply going to ignore dishonest and half-baked arguments, and Logical Fallacy Fiestas.
I think you might just be the best troll we've had.
No, I came here for an argument.
Whether or not one agrees with Narutakikun, he has a point: regardless of its truth or not:
In other words, perception is the key and Narutakikun is trying to present that perception.
The nominations say otherwise. I didn't even make the top 5.