# Is our culture becoming "desensitized"?



## Huilunsoittaja

"Can't you take a joke?"

"You're a ***** if you honestly take offense!"

"What do you mean you can't handle it?"

I was reading an article today: http://kotaku.com/5976075/this-games-special-edition-comes-with-a-statue-of-a-bikini+clad-severed-female-torso It made me very sad.

I started wondering about our culture in general, not just video games. The media, and the like. Are we spiraling down a path where we start claiming that almost nothing can be too offensive, too insulting, too violent, too risque, or what-not? Are our minds/emotions becoming so use to grotesque things that it becomes pleasing, and gain a desire for more?

_Where is this all going to go?_

Your thoughts.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Are our minds/emotions becoming so used to grotesque things that it becomes pleasing, and gain a desire for more?


It was Anaïs Nin, I believe, who mused that the quest for abnormal pleasures has the effect of rendering one inured to normal pleasures.

I'm not sure I have a lot more than _that_, concerning this particular topic.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote of this on On Looking Into the Abyss. Though I read it several years ago and am fuzzy on the details, she pointed out the difference between glancing into the darkness and actually staring into it: one leads to revulsion and the other to depravity.

I'd hate to meet the guy who hand-paints those disgusting things.


----------



## deggial

public hangings and beheadings were common at the same time as the pretty music of the Baroque and Classical era was being written and enjoyed. And we're still here


----------



## millionrainbows

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Are we spiraling down a path where we start claiming that almost nothing can be too offensive, too insulting, too violent, too risque, or what-not? Are our minds/emotions becoming so use to grotesque things that it becomes pleasing, and gain a desire for more?
> 
> _Where is this all going to go?_
> 
> Your thoughts.


If you are talking about violence, I was reminded of this on the recently-aired PBS American Masters series which featured The Doors. Jim Morrison was quoted as saying that "Americans are obsessed by violence," and this was way back in 1970 during Viet Nam.

If you want to talk about "risque," then consider that the essential appeal of pornography, apart from its visually stimulating effect on the male species, is "titillation," and this titillation is more subtle in nature, being more "yang" than "yin."

The tabloids, gossip, weight-loss, divorce, DWI arrests, incidents in nightclubs, character assassination, "confessions" to Oprah, "confessions" to her protege-trainee of daytime TV Dr. Phil, sex scandal: it's all titillating, and I call this "female pornography." No offense to women, but this seems to be the direction our society is heading. I see it as a passive-aggressive way of attacking celebrities, politicians, anyone who is "famous" or is in a role-model situation.

Judging from the displays of tabloid papers and magazines I see at the grocery-store checkout, and when I have the bad fortune of being exposed to daytime TV, this is apparently a hunger or addiction which is being fed and perpetuated. Yes, I think America is becoming more like "cannibals," chewing-up and spitting-out anyone who makes a misstep, or shows human weakness, so we, the "righteous," can go in for the kill. It's a violent game which exemplifies the American psyche in all its naked glory. Not that we're the only ones.


----------



## jani

Too violent?
In real life yes, in video games no.
I love God of war!
Those who know the game or have played it know violent it is but its fun, and before anyone says that violent video games are responsible about violence may i remind you that the most bloody&Cruel wars took place before video games were invented.
Also i love to play god of war ( One of the most violent video games of all time), and i am not violent at all.


----------



## violadude

Eh, there are more important problems in the world to be solved than people selling bloody woman torsos.


----------



## millionrainbows

jani said:


> Too violent?
> In real life yes, in video games no.
> I love God of war!
> Those who know the game or have played it know violent it is but its fun.


I will give the up-coming youngsters the benefit of the doubt, because when I was a child I was obsessed with war: playing it, wearing helmets, toy guns, toy grenades, a 007 briefcase with a plastic Beretta inside, army comic books such as _Our Army at War_ starring Sgt. Rock, _Star-Spangled War Stories, G.I. Combat..._ Our favorite movies were The Alamo, Pork Chop Hill, Hell is for Heroes (with Steve McQueen), The 300 Spartans, Ben Hur, Spartacus...

Yet, I am a pacifist, and do not own guns...


----------



## jani

millionrainbows said:


> I will give the up-coming youngsters the benefit of the doubt, because when I was a child I was obsessed with war: playing it, wearing helmets, toy guns, toy grenades, a 007 briefcase with a plastic Beretta inside, army comic books such as _Our Army at War_ starring Sgt. Rock, _Star-Spangled War Stories, G.I. Combat..._ Our favorite movies were The Alamo, Pork Chop Hill, Hell is for Heroes (with Steve McQueen), The 300 Spartans, Ben Hur, Spartacus...
> 
> Yet, I am a pacifist, and do not own guns...


I only accept violence when its used as a self-defence.


----------



## Ramako

deggial said:


> public hangings and beheadings were common at the same time as the pretty music of the Baroque and Classical era was being written and enjoyed. And we're still here


There are few things worse for society than to forget that there is death and suffering in the world.

It is in this, and not the bloody torsos, that the true depravity of our time consists.


----------



## KenOC

Video games? Our love of first-person shooters is not desensitizing, it's merely training. Mark my words, we're turning out the best crop of drone pilots the world has ever seen! Coming soon, over a city near you...


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

violadude said:


> Eh, there are more important problems in the world to be solved than people selling bloody woman torsos.


Isn't reviving a desensitized culture an important _factor _in solving the world's problems? If culture is desensitized to injustice, will there ever be a move toward change _for _justice in this world?


----------



## Ramako

Huilunsoittaja said:


> _Where is this all going to go?_
> 
> Your thoughts.


In my opinion in only a short time we will have no morals at all. I hope there will be some kind of conservative revolution, but I think it is not necessarily guaranteed.

The only moral which is becoming increasingly active is the taboo against morality. And this one will continue to do so.

There is not a depraved person who does not glory in their depravity. For this reason it can be hard to tell what is truly moral.

Do you think video gamers depraved?
Do you think the person who painted that depraved?
Do you think the cannibal depraved?
Do you think the murderer who enjoys what he does depraved?
If so, then why? If not, then why?

If we have no reason to think that they are not, then we might as well go and do likewise. If we do think them depraved - then what is depraved and what is not? We cannot just say "they enjoy it - there is nothing wrong in that". There is no depravity without enjoyment. Idle compromises will get us nowhere, but that is exactly where we are going anyway.


----------



## deggial

Ramako said:


> In my opinion in only a short time we will have no morals at all. I hope there will be some kind of conservative revolution, but I think it is not necessarily guaranteed.
> 
> The only moral which is becoming increasingly active is the taboo against morality. And this one will continue to do so.
> 
> There is not a depraved person who does not glory in their depravity. For this reason it can be hard to tell what is truly moral.
> 
> Do you think video gamers depraved?
> Do you think the person who painted that depraved?
> Do you think the cannibal depraved?
> Do you think the murderer who enjoys what he does depraved?
> If so, then why? If not, then why?
> 
> If we have no reason to think that they are not, then we might as well go and do likewise. If we do think them depraved - then what is depraved and what is not? We cannot just say "they enjoy it - there is nothing wrong in that". There is no depravity without enjoyment. Idle compromises will get us nowhere, but that is exactly where we are going anyway.


I'm not sure if those are rhetorical questions but I think you are confusing a few things there.

Do you think video gamers depraved? *do you think having thoughts that are sanctioned by polite company is depraved?*

Do you think the person who painted that depraved? *possibly; possibly just doing a job because he couldn't find anything else.*

Do you think the cannibal depraved? *I'm fairly sure a cannibal is this day and age has got a mental illness.*

Do you think the murderer who enjoys what he does depraved? *a murderer who enjoys what he does is a sociopath - no empathy. I'd say that goes beyond being depraved.*


----------



## KenOC

deggial said:


> public hangings and beheadings were common at the same time as the pretty music of the Baroque and Classical era was being written and enjoyed. And we're still here


People who think our culture has become desensitized should really read Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature." Pinker does an excellent job proving (yes, proving) that we are less accepting of all forms of violence than ever before in history. Also that the per capita rates of all sorts of violence (general murder rates, violence against women and children, cruelty to animals, executions, etc.) have been in a steep decline for the past few hundred years.


----------



## moody

millionrainbows said:


> I will give the up-coming youngsters the benefit of the doubt, because when I was a child I was obsessed with war: playing it, wearing helmets, toy guns, toy grenades, a 007 briefcase with a plastic Beretta inside, army comic books such as _Our Army at War_ starring Sgt. Rock, _Star-Spangled War Stories, G.I. Combat..._ Our favorite movies were The Alamo, Pork Chop Hill, Hell is for Heroes (with Steve McQueen), The 300 Spartans, Ben Hur, Spartacus...
> 
> Yet, I am a pacifist, and do not own guns...


Yes and the " Three Hundred Spartans " (Richard Egan) was preferable to this 300 tripe of recent times.
In any case the more depravity the better I say!!


----------



## moody

I got rather desensitized getting shot twice and blown up once ,fighting to make sure that people who are moaning here could stay sensitized.


----------



## millionrainbows

Ramako said:


> Do you think the cannibal depraved?


In all fairness to cannibals, there are two kinds, aggressive and friendly. Friendly cannibals only eat people they like, such as a small morsel of a deceased family member.

The Eucharist is a symbolic act of "sublimated cannibalism." How do you like them apples? :lol:


----------



## Ramako

deggial said:


> I'm not sure if those are rhetorical questions but I think you are confusing a few things there.


No, I think you are missing the point. They were not rhetorical questions.

Do you think mental illness has something to do with depravity? Because I read your answer as "I think the first two aren't depraved, and the latter two are" by the distinction between a presumed 'mental health' and mental illness.


----------



## violadude

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Isn't reviving a desensitized culture an important _factor _in solving the world's problems? If culture is desensitized to injustice, will there ever be a move toward change _for _justice in this world?


I think there's a broader problem, that is, desensitization towards suffering in general. The bloody torso doesn't bother me so much because I think it seems sort of comical. It's comically unreal. What's worse than people selling fake violence is people seeing real suffering on the news (violence, or other forms of suffering such as starvation) and being apathetic, or worse, callous towards their suffering. I don't necessarily think this is the result of selling fake violence, although maybe it could be. The bloody torso just didn't outrage me as much as it did you.


----------



## violadude

Ramako said:


> In my opinion in only a short time we will have no morals at all. I hope there will be some kind of conservative revolution, but I think it is not necessarily guaranteed.
> 
> The only moral which is becoming increasingly active is the taboo against morality. And this one will continue to do so.
> 
> There is not a depraved person who does not glory in their depravity. For this reason it can be hard to tell what is truly moral.
> 
> Do you think video gamers depraved?
> Do you think the person who painted that depraved?
> Do you think the cannibal depraved?
> Do you think the murderer who enjoys what he does depraved?
> If so, then why? If not, then why?
> 
> If we have no reason to think that they are not, then we might as well go and do likewise. If we do think them depraved - then what is depraved and what is not? We cannot just say "they enjoy it - there is nothing wrong in that". There is no depravity without enjoyment. Idle compromises will get us nowhere, but that is exactly where we are going anyway.


What kind of morals do you think are disappearing that are in need of a "conservative revolution"?


----------



## Ramako

millionrainbows said:


> In all fairness to cannibals, there are two kinds, aggressive and friendly. Friendly cannibals only eat people they like, such as a small morsel of a deceased family member.
> 
> The Eucharist is a symbolic act of "sublimated cannibalism." How do you like them apples? :lol:


Very witty. However the argument falls down on both sides of the fence, though it might stand for a moment on it I suppose.

I should probably point out that I don't like all the moral indignation thrown at gamers. There may be fault there, but not particularly more, often less, than that of the very same people who usually point the fingers. It always helps people to feel righteous to point fingers.


----------



## deggial

Ramako said:


> No, I think you are missing the point. They were not rhetorical questions.
> 
> Do you think mental illness has something to do with depravity? Because I read your answer as "I think the first two aren't depraved, and the latter two are" by the distinction between a presumed 'mental health' and mental illness.


when I said you're confusing things I meant you seem to have thrown the regular dude who plays video games and some guy who painted a torso together with the cannibal and the murderer. I'd wager the first two are on the healthier side of things and likely not even depraved.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

violadude said:


> I don't necessarily think this is the result of selling fake violence, although maybe it could be. The bloody torso just didn't outrage me as much as it did you.


This thread isn't only about that article, it was an idea that got me started thinking about everything else. I wasn't exactly outraged, but I found it misogynist which disturbed me. I'd be disturbed if it was a male's torso too though.

I didn't really intend this thread to be about problems with video games.  The article was there as an example of people coming to complain about outrageous things like that. I've seen other articles about recent music videos and actress dresses as being too risque, but of course those complaints go ignored. Standards are continually pressured, but for what end?


----------



## Ramako

violadude said:


> What kind of morals do you think are disappearing that are in need of a "conservative revolution"?


The only genuine moral underpinning that I can see has much sway in society at the moment is that we shouldn't bother other people without permission.

This is why violence is frowned upon - because violence of necessity involves two or more people.

Suppose I ask you to kill me, for no particular reason, and you do so - is what you do immoral? Obviously a court would disagree, but that isn't really the point.

To think that it is not immoral is to believe that it is not the violence itself which is immoral, but the fact that you are violating the other persons wishes if you do it without permission. This can be done in many ways without violence, and often is, and is often criticised for it.

This seems to me to create a horribly individualised society - and one without a genuine moral basis. If violence is not considered wrong for its own sake, I see it as only a matter of time for it to become more widespread.

I don't see the principle of only not violating other people's wishes as a sustainable one.


----------



## violadude

Huilunsoittaja said:


> This thread isn't only about that article, it was an idea that got me started thinking about everything else. I wasn't exactly outraged, but I found it misogynist which disturbed me. I'd be disturbed if it was a male's torso too though.
> 
> I didn't really intend this thread to be about problems with video games.  The article was there as an example of people coming to complain about outrageous things like that. I've seen other articles about recent music videos and actress dresses as being too risque, but of course those complaints go ignored. Standards are continually pressured, but for what end?


Do you agree with the complaints about "risque" dresses?


----------



## Ramako

deggial said:


> when I said you're confusing things I meant you seem to have thrown the regular dude who plays video games and some guy who painted a torso together with the cannibal and the murderer. I'd wager the first two are on the healthier side of things and likely not even depraved.


Well I do have a tendency of taking things to extremes :lol:. But that was part of the point - we need to have a rational or empirical basis for morals.


----------



## violadude

Ramako said:


> The only genuine underpinning that I can see has much sway in society at the moment is that we shouldn't bother other people without permission.
> 
> This is why violence is frowned upon - because violence of necessity involves two or more people.
> 
> Suppose I ask you to kill me, for no particular reason, and you do so - is what you do immoral? Obviously a court would disagree, but that isn't really the point.
> 
> To think that it is not immoral is to believe that it is not the violence itself which is immoral, but the fact that you are violating the other persons wishes if you do it without permission. This can be done in many ways without violence, and often is, and is often criticised for it.
> 
> This seems to me to create a horribly individualised society - and one without a genuine moral basis. If violence is not considered wrong for its own sake, I see it as only a matter of time for it to become more widespread.
> 
> I don't see the principle of only not violating other people's wishes as a sustainable one.


That's how morality is defined though. Nothing is inherently moral or immoral. Morality comes from an understanding of the relationship between two living beings.


----------



## Ramako

violadude said:


> That's how morality is defined though. Nothing is inherently moral or immoral. Morality comes from an understanding of the relationship between two living beings.


Well I disagree with you, but let's agree to disagree. I practice so little of what I preach that I already feel a hypocrite on this thread :lol:


----------



## KenOC

violadude said:


> That's how morality is defined though. Nothing is inherently moral or immoral. Morality comes from an understanding of the relationship between two living beings.


That is certainly not how morality is usually defined. Here's Wiki's try at a definition.

In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores.

In its normative sense, "morality" refers to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

violadude said:


> Do you agree with the complaints about "risque" dresses?


I didn't see what the particular dresses looked like, it didn't really interest me. But in general, risque dresses bother me because, being a woman, I can strongly relate the motivations behind it, the desperation, the conflict of insecurity and pride, and yearning to be loved and to be desired... I get disturbed...


----------



## violadude

KenOC said:


> That is certainly not how morality is usually defined. Here's Wiki's try at a definition.
> 
> In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores.


Yes...and how are those cultural values, codes of conduct and social mores arrived at? Is it just guessing? Or, as I already said, an understanding of the relationship between two or more living beings? If killing someone was inherently immoral we would see every death as immoral, however, hardly anyone would say that killing Hitler would be immoral (to use an overused example) because we have judged the relationship between his actions and it's effect on society and judged it to be a negative effect and thus getting rid of him is not immoral, but moral because it is beneficial to people as a whole.


----------



## Vaneyes

Killing someone is easier these days, and the justice system is....

And with over-populating, fewer jobs, more and more explicit video games and movies, it will only get worse. Sad.


----------



## millionrainbows

Now, with all these mass-shootings, the big mania-fear in America, and on this forum at times, is not on guns, where it should be, but on the question of "mental illness." Now your "identity" will be scrutinized even more carefully, and any infraction of behavior will be noted and counted against you. Notice how blithely cooperative the answers were on the "personality disorder" thread. Big mistake, if you ask me.

No thanks, I'll pass.


----------



## moody

Huilunsoittaja said:


> This thread isn't only about that article, it was an idea that got me started thinking about everything else. I wasn't exactly outraged, but I found it misogynist which disturbed me. I'd be disturbed if it was a male's torso too though.
> 
> I didn't really intend this thread to be about problems with video games.  The article was there as an example of people coming to complain about outrageous things like that. I've seen other articles about recent music videos and actress dresses as being too risque, but of course those complaints go ignored. Standards are continually pressured, but for what end?


Actresses dresses being too risque--are you just being prudish ?


----------



## KenOC

moody said:


> Actresses dresses being too risque--are you just being prudish ?


Some months back, Yuja Wang appeared at a concert wearing a risque dress. One major newpaper referred to the concert as a "****walk." I'm getting in line for tickets... :lol:


----------



## Crudblud

*The following post is a fine example of unfocused rambling. It also contains links to information which some people may find disturbing.*

Killing terrorists in _Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3_ is fantasy, it does not translate to shooting your classmates with an Uzi. Killing a prostitute in _Grand Theft Auto IV_ is fantasy, it does not translate to becoming a rapist or a misogynist. It is only when the person exposed to these experiences is unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality that it becomes a problem, and when that is the case it is most likely a severe mental disorder, a hard-wired fault in the individual's brain. This does not absolve them of what they have done, of course, but it is worth noting that a mentally unstable person is predisposed to doing things that a mentally unstable person would do, and they are just as likely to be set off by a seemingly innocuous advertisement for car insurance as a violent video game. Especially prevalent in this spectrum of social ills, and perhaps most disturbing of all, is the willingness of many western parents to attempt to blame their child's actions on video games, films, suggestive music videos etc. rather than taking responsibility and either owning up to being crappy parents or accepting that their child simply had a screw loose. It is no less disturbing when opportunist religious TV crusaders try and often succeed in compounding those parents' sense of righteousness in their disgraceful behaviour, bringing us to all out moral panic over something that is unambiguously artificial and that cannot be mistaken for reality by any rational individual.

*What happens when you kill something in Call of Duty* _(or a similar game)_

1. A model consisting of a stack of textured and animated polygons is caused to move, either according to a preset animation or the laws of the physics engine, from one position to another. In this case, usually from a vertically oriented stance to a horizontally oriented stance.

2. An emitter is triggered, displaying an animated image of between 3 and 10 frames (usually) which will, provided the player is facing the enemy, appear to move towards the screen. The frames will consist of a liquid like spray of varying shades of red, simulating blood.

3. A vocal sample of a man shouting "argh!" will sound.

These events happen simultaneously in most cases, though depending on the position of the enemy and the angle at which they were hit, their ragdoll may continue to move for some time before eventually coming to rest on the ground, or on a ledge. Depending on the physics engine, the ragdoll may be manipulated manually after this. It is obviously not real, and it is explainable in terms like those above which further remove it from any sense of reality. It is pure artifice.

[HR][/HR]
Is the image of the bloody female torso in the OP's link really all that bad? It obviously isn't real, and you can bet that no woman was harmed in making that image, so in any real sense I would say it's inconsequential, especially when far more realistic violence was featured in many horror movies as far back as the 1970s and 80s, and in the 1800s in literature, if not before then. Is it misogynistic? To an extent, yes; the marketing panders to the predominantly male gaming crowd and predominantly male horror crowd, but I also know plenty of female gamers/horror fans who would see this as just another silly marketing gimmick, which is what it is. It is also worth noting that this item only comes with the *collector's edition* of the game, it is specifically aimed at the hardcore _Dead Island_ fans.

Desensitisation to images of fake blood and gore is a good thing, I think, because it enables us to look beyond the violence in a given film or game and assess whether it is actually worthwhile in its own right. A good example of this is this YouTube channel, which takes a look at horror and exploitation films (especially those targeted during the "video nasty" scare) and gives an often detailed critical analysis of plot, character, symbolism and other elements within a given title. This approach to works of fiction encourages the consumer to think about a film they're watching or a game they're playing and analyse it rationally, something which I can only see as a positive thing.

Desensitisation to images of real blood and gore is much less black and white. I'm sure we all remember the images of Muammar Gaddafi's bloodied corpse being posed for the camera like a doll in front of cheering crowds, all of these being readily available to people of all ages in print, on TV and on the internet. It is viewed entirely through the detaching presence of the camera lens, and we are further separated from the event through the commentary of the reporting journalist, in some aspects it resembles the way in which events like _Wrestlemania_ are presented. Roll up! Roll up!

I'm pretty sure I've lost my train of thought at this point, but suffice it to say this is a very complex issue that can't simply be attributed to any one thing. And I shall stop rambling about it now.


----------



## Flamme

Kali Yuga...


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I used to play *lots* of Call of Duty (the older one about WWII) in my teenage years and took on all of _Wehrmacht_ single-handedly, but it never made me want to kill anyone, even when I go on vacation to Germany 

It's all in the person, if someone has a screw unhinged, there will always be something to trigger him, even if violent movies or video games did not exist. Things like classical literature can be violent too, after all (just think of some Shakespeare's dramas), does that mean we should ban them all, just to be safe? I think parental control should be necessary, however. I would never let my kid watch something like 300, until they are a bit older.


----------



## Flamme

Yes there was always thugs loonies and random violence primitive speech and all but today Style is destroyed utterly...In all social circles not just the bottom...You can see that when you compare old and new movies or footage from real life...From the Black and white days...


----------



## moody

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I didn't see what the particular dresses looked like, it didn't really interest me. But in general, risque dresses bother me because, being a woman, I can strongly relate the motivations behind it, the desperation, the conflict of insecurity and pride, and yearning to be loved and to be desired... I get disturbed...


I'm sorry but that's psychobabble !


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

moody said:


> Actresses dresses being too risque--are you just being prudish ?


:lol: You're asking me?! Well, I have a question for you then: what point _is _something risque or prudish? Or is there no such thing as risque and only prudish mentality? Or what if there's not such thing as prudish mentality and only risque? You may wonder, what's wrong with someone being risque? I ask... what's wrong with someone being prudish? :tiphat:

Is it healthy for a society not to think about this stuff?


----------



## moody

Huilunsoittaja said:


> :lol: You're asking me?! Well, I have a question for you then: what point _is _something risque or prudish? Or is there no such thing as risque and only prudish mentality? Or what if there's not such thing as prudish mentality and only risque? You may wonder, what's wrong with someone being risque? I ask... what's wrong with someone being prudish? :tiphat:
> 
> Is it healthy for a society not to think about this stuff?


I was sales director for Mary Quant in the 60's,we were the people who started all the trouble: the new woman,the mini skirt,free love, everything on the moralistic side that's wrong now is all our fault---and you ask me if there's anything wrong with prudishness : A prude=
a woman of affected or oversensitive modesty or reserve. No it's unhealthy and we may go back to censorship and all the faults of the past. We used to have a situation where women were not allowed in bars as it wasn't thought proper. A married couple in a movie were not allowed to be seen actually in bed togethet,a woman's bathing costume could not show her naval---is that what you'd like to see back ?


----------



## Flamme

Many women just want to draw attention with their bodies not just uneducated or morally loosen but some of the higher classes and hig h education...


----------



## millionrainbows

Great post, crudblud. I was wondering if there were any "certifiably sane" people on this thread.:lol:


----------



## clavichorder

I ask this sincerely: is porn generally unhealthy? Worse a vice than alcohol or spending too much time posting in a discussion forum?


----------



## violadude

clavichorder said:


> I ask this sincerely: is porn generally unhealthy?


I answer sincerely: No.


----------



## clavichorder

violadude said:


> I answer sincerely: No.


Discussion closed?


----------



## violadude

clavichorder said:


> Discussion closed?


Well, do you have a point to make that disputes my answer?


----------



## clavichorder

violadude said:


> Well, do you have a point to make that disputes my answer?


Nothing concrete. But I do speculate that it does "take the magic" away from the real thing a little too much sometimes. It could be harmful to a relationship.


----------



## EricABQ

clavichorder said:


> Nothing concrete. But I do speculate that it does "take the magic" away from the real thing a little too much sometimes. It could be harmful to a relationship.


It "could be" destructive, but it could also be the only thing that keeps the fire burning in a relationship. It all depends on how it is used.


----------



## clavichorder

EricABQ said:


> It "could be" destructive, but it could also be the only thing that keeps the fire burning in a relationship. It all depends on how it is used.


One could find better things than porn to keep the fire burning, I bet.

Not to say I am above watching it myself. Its nothing to be ashamed of in my book, but if it gets to be an addiction, as it very well can, I don't think that's a good thing at all.


----------



## starthrower

It's obvious to me that the corporate owned media and their editors don't believe that the public have become desensitized to violence. If they believed this, then they wouldn't feel the need to completely sensor the graphic images of war violence, destruction, and death.


----------



## KenOC

Many cultures, including (historically) our own, do or have condemned and marginalized pornography. In the United States, it has been for most of our history a jailable offense.

To people who blithely assume that "there's nothing wrong with it," I'd ask, why then have our views (and the views of many others) generally been the opposite? There's often a knee-jerk response to such things to endorse the common wisdom of the moment without much thought.

Not stating a position here, only suggesting that a bit of thought may be in order rather than just calling up the values of 2013 (which cannot be demonstrated to be any "better" than any other year's values).


----------



## starthrower

KenOC said:


> Many cultures, including (historically) our own, do or have condemned and marginalized pornography. In the United States, it has been for most of our history a jailable offense.


But that became a thing of the past after the big corporations started to invest in it.


----------



## violadude

clavichorder said:


> Nothing concrete. But I do speculate that it does "take the magic" away from the real thing a little too much sometimes. It could be harmful to a relationship.


It could I guess...iono. My sex drive is too insatiable for me to foresee getting bored with the actual thing any time soon. I'm not necessarily addicted to porn, but I'm probably addicted to the chemical release that happens when...well ya know lol.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Ah - but is not even justice in the eye of the beholder.....


----------



## Crudblud

clavichorder said:


> I ask this sincerely: is porn generally unhealthy? Worse a vice than alcohol or spending too much time posting in a discussion forum?


It promotes and reinforces unhealthy gender stereotypes, and if it becomes the consumer's primary source for sexual information it can all too easily distort and warp their self image and the way they see others and lead to the development of any number of complexes. I would say it is quite unhealthy if its consumption is not handled with care.


----------



## Ravndal

Vaneyes said:


> Killing someone is easier these days, and the justice system is....
> 
> And with over-populating, fewer jobs, more and more explicit video games and movies, it will only get worse. Sad.


The video games/movies is not the problem, rather those who sell weapon is. And NRA is probably one of the most dangerous associations i can think of.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Crudblud said:


> It promotes and reinforces unhealthy gender stereotypes, and if it becomes the consumer's primary source for sexual information it can all too easily distort and warp their self image and the way they see others and lead to the development of any number of complexes. I would say it is quite unhealthy if its consumption is not handled with care.


Sounds like your are speaking from experience......


----------



## PetrB

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Sounds like your are speaking from experience......


There is a lot of research, pschological, which has reached the same conclusion.

Not that it is healthy, but I wonder if those for whom porn is an 'unhealthy' preoccupation were already the ones 'not good at or wanting' real personal relationships.

This does relate to prudery, and priggishness in general. Where sex is a matter of fact part of life, and looked upon, within family, school, and the society in general, the consumption of porn is hugely less than it is in the Anglo-British domains, i.e. America, etc.

Why? Because the less prudish and more matter of fact a society is about sex, it can no longer be sensationalized, or used as part of the 'draw' for, say, a mainstream film.

Get over it, there is less which can jerk a persons chain. Risque becomes not risque, but obvious or boring, etc.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

PetrB said:


> There is a lot of research, pschological, which has reached the same conclusion.
> 
> Not that it is healthy, but I wonder if those for whom porn is an 'unhealthy' preoccupation were already the ones 'not good at or wanting' real personal relationships.
> 
> This does relate to prudery, and priggishness in general. Where sex is a matter of fact part of life, and looked upon, within family, school, and the society in general, the consumption of porn is hugely less than it is in the Anglo-British domains, i.e. America, etc.
> 
> Why? Because the less prudish and more matter of fact a society is about sex, it can no longer be sensationalized, or used as part of the 'draw' for, say, a mainstream film.
> 
> Get over it, there is less which can jerk a persons chain. Risque becomes not risque, but obvious or boring, etc.


Very good points you raise - particularly para 2, however I'm here to correct generalities and I must point out that "Anglo-British domains, i.e. America" - is very much a generalisation (notice I use s rather than z mm), as you forget the many other Anglo-British domains including but not limited to Australia and New Zealand & Canada etc the list goes on.......


----------



## millionrainbows

Asking men to not be visually stimulated goes against our very DNA, and both women and men know this. Pornography is just an exaggerated version of that for men; women's pornography is romance novels and tabloid gossip, which "titillates."

If we really want men to remain "pure," then women can start wearing veils and baggy robes which obscure their assets, like in the middle east.

Otherwise, in America, men should be given the right to sue women for "visual harassment." :lol:


----------



## jani

I highly suggest that you watch these three videos, Penn and teller have a few thoughts about violent videogames/porn etc... Health professionals are also speaking on these episodes.


----------



## starthrower

I suspect most parents will attempt to shield their 10-12 year old sons from viewing porn while allowing them to play football and receive concussions.


----------



## jani

Why the naked human body and sex is still a big taboo for some people?
Both are completely natural.
Why some parents think its better for the kid watch a action movie were people are killed using violence than watching a clip of soft porn/porn?


Just a few thoughts.


----------



## Crudblud

jani said:


> Why the naked human body and sex is still a big taboo for some people?
> Both are completely natural.
> Why some parents think its better for the kid watch a action movie were people are killed using violence than watching a clip of soft porn/porn?


In most cases, "natural" is not a word you can use to describe pornography at all. From the start, the camera lens provides an unnatural, detached perspective regardless of who is holding the camera, and the bodies on display are often chemically or surgically altered, and those that aren't generally fall far outside the average in terms of the proportions of certain body parts. These two factors the combine to depict sexual practices that are almost always aberrations in one way or another, even in non-fetish material. The average pre-pubescent child is not sexually mature and highly impressionable, showing them footage of highly unnatural sexual practices between either unnatural or exceptional cases of human anatomy is not going to help them appreciate or understand sexuality, it is most likely going to provide them with a naive definition of normal human sexuality and negatively influence their mental growth well in to adulthood.


----------



## Ravndal

Porn-movies and real sex is so incredibly different, that it is important to not let kids growing up believing that the way they do in films, is they way to do it in real life. But i don't know. I saw porn when i was 11(?) years old or something, and I'm not entirely crazy.


----------



## jani

Ravndal said:


> Porn-movies and real sex is so incredibly different, that it is important to not let kids growing up believing that the way they do in films, is they way to do it in real life. But i don't know. I saw porn when i was 11(?) years old or something, and I'm not entirely crazy.


I didn't mean that porn is natural, I meant that sex is.

Edited , I don't want to argue about this subject because it could lead to conflict between forum members so i edited out the normal post.


----------



## Ravndal

None of your points above is a problem in Norway, so this is new to me. We had sexuality education in school when we were 13.


----------



## jani

Ravndal said:


> None of your points above is a problem in Norway, so this is new to me. We had sexuality education in school when we were 13.


Edited , I don't want to argue about this subject because it could lead to conflict between forum members so i edited out the normal post.


----------



## clavichorder

Penn and Teller do try very hard to sound authoritative in a lot of their videos, attempting to be "social Mythbusters" of sorts. But I've seen them go quite far in some of their claims, claiming that we can't tell the difference in taste in food, its all about the atmosphere and pretension surrounding it at restaurants. That is of course ridiculous. But it does open one's mind(if you were so unaware previously) to the possibility that there are other things at work than just the taste.


----------



## clavichorder

I have also read this regarding porn: it is another example of an unhealthy voyeuristic mentality(regardless of the anonymity and detachment you have from the "actors" in real life, and their willingness to "perform") in this day and age. Facebook is a big part as well("stalking profiles" and such, its the norm, much sneakier than waiting to know about people even if the information is voluntarily supplied and even altered, they can't make eye contact with you and gauge your reaction(touches on being a little more self absorbed than usual as well)). Voyeurism, even with the detachment from behind a screen causes a degree of guilt until such has been normalized. This is a prime example of being "desensitized," I think. I didn't watch any porn till I was very nearly 18 because it made me feel bad to see others on screen, though I watched cartoon depictions like hentai(which is more extreme in distorting perspective). Recent events in my life, conversations, have given me good reason to not watch it. I don't really care if this behavior is considered abnormal for my age, I'm sure my friends will still like me, and that I won't be suffocating from lack of "release," as there are other ways for that to happen, and its better if you don't do it quite as often anyway.

Since I mentioned facebook, what do you guys think of that as a desensitizing influence on society? Its a subtler thing, but I think its very real. I can't decide myself whether its generally a bad thing, a vice, or its just that its used in such a manner. It could just be a technological advancement of society that we are getting used to, by things move insanely fast these days, how can we not expect my generation(and the others surrounding us, more current and older) to be a little more messed up than usual? Perhaps we really are getting ahead of ourselves.


----------



## clavichorder

Of course, I have heard this quote that can justify just about anyone doing any minor or major vice, something like this:

"He who is without vice is surely without virtue as well."

I'm not sure how true this is, but it is true that a lot of "great" figures in history seemed to have major issues and major strengths. Maybe their vice though was just "taking their own path" which can cause a little isolating craziness, since humans are "social animals." Sometimes, like Lance Armstrong, they think the means justified the ends maybe.(though unlike him, history has chosen to ignore their means in favor of the benefits received by the "ends?")

Forgive me for all these hypotheticals: perhaps some examples are in order to test them out.


----------



## Crudblud

clavichorder said:


> Forgive me for all these hypotheticals: perhaps some examples are in order to test them out.


Well, ideas don't get anywhere without discussion. I for one think your posts raise some interesting issues, especially your point about Facebook as a source of desensitisation. However, I would say that voyeurism is ingrained in western culture to a degree, and that social networking, especially image based communities, are simply the latest means of exploring that fetish - if it really is a fetish anymore. In various posts way on the other side of the board I've made the point that our society is utilitarian, and that technological advances are made in the main as a means of obtaining gratification in a more efficient manner. I don't really see Facebook as being fundamentally different to reality TV in that sense, the only difference is who is in control of the artifice in each case. In reality TV it's the producers who decide what airs and what doesn't, on Facebook it's the users themselves, which makes me wonder to what extent the target of the voyeurism is aware of and therefore complicit in the act. I assume, with some fairly high profile cases of "fusking" (a means of acquiring private pictures from facebook, photobucket etc. without permission) in recent years, the level of ignorance can't be all that high, but then some people don't use the internet for anything other than Facebook so their ability to see it from an outside perspective may be severely limited.


----------



## millionrainbows

Crudblud said:


> ...I would say that voyeurism is ingrained in western culture to a degree, and that social networking, especially image based communities, are simply the latest means of exploring that fetish...I don't really see Facebook as being fundamentally different to reality TV in that sense, the only difference is who is in control of the artifice in each case...on Facebook it's the users themselves, which makes me wonder to what extent the target of the voyeurism is aware of and therefore complicit in the act...


...or to what extent the target is unaware or naive, and being exploited. Yes, the social network is the "new pornography," albeit of the less sexually explicit tabloid "titillation" variety.


----------



## Lukecash12

Actually, I would offer that in some ways we are less desensitized than people have been in the past, maybe even in most ways in some cases. Sure, we watch stuff happen on a screen with perfect understanding that it isn't actually happening, while people in ancient Rome would watch real people gut each other. Imagine if most of your children hadn't survived past 13, if your significant other died in childbirth... Come to think of it, when it comes to political legislature, to our norms and values, it strikes me that we actually have a lot more preference towards peace, toleration, and life than people did in the past. Sure, things can be pretty awful, but try comparing militant Islam today to the Moors, or any other religion or group for that matter. Think of colonialism, how desensitized they were to the basic value of life, how the slaves lived in India.


----------



## Turangalîla

^ Yes, but the difference is that in ancient times, most people were _innocently_ and _unwillingly_ exposed to such violence. Today, people watch movies and play video games with such violence because they are _fascinated_ by it.


----------



## KenOC

Lukecash12 said:


> Actually, I would offer that in some ways we are less desensitized than people have been in the past, maybe even in most ways in some cases.


I think that's right. I mentioned earlier Pinker's book "The Better Angels of our Nature," which pretty well proves a huge decline in rates of actual violence of most types over the past few hundred years, and our decreasing tolerance for it. We still love our video games and action movies, but that seems to be a separate realm.

But if I get hold of Flash Gordon, no guarantees!


----------



## GreenMamba

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> ^ Yes, but the difference is that in ancient times, most people were _innocently_ and _unwillingly_ exposed to such violence. Today, people watch movies and play video games with such violence because they are _fascinated_ by it.


People who went watch Lions feast on Christians were neither innocently nor unwillingly exposed. The crucial difference is that those events were real, while video game and movie violence is fake.


----------



## Crudblud

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> ^ Yes, but the difference is that in ancient times, most people were _innocently_ and _unwillingly_ exposed to such violence. Today, people watch movies and play video games with such violence because they are _fascinated_ by it.


I'm curious, where are you getting this information?


----------



## Turangalîla

GreenMamba said:


> People who went watch Lions feast on Christians were neither innocently nor unwillingly exposed. The crucial difference is that those events were real, while video game and movie violence is fake.





Crudblud said:


> I'm curious, where are you getting this information?


My apologies, I misread part of Lukecash's statement. When he spoke of real people "gutting each other", I interpreted it as the horror of war, not the Coliseum-type activities (which were most definitely for recreation). When he spoke of people dying in childbirth and the "slaves in India", I was correct in thinking that he meant the hardships and difficulties of life. So I will willingly agree that there were people in ancient times who were "fascinated" by violence (public hangings, etc.).

However, it is unfair of you to ask me where I am "getting this information", as if I could simply refer you to an encyclopedia, when I have obviously stated my beliefs based on a rather broad worldview. It would be much more appropriate of you to provide a counter-argument to what I have said-that I can deal with.


----------



## Ramako

Well I think it is clear that people have always been fascinated by violence. There have always been sick people in the world. Somehow, I don't feel that people baying for blood in the Colosseum are on the same level as gamers baying for digital blood on a monitor/tv screen. We have seen a significant improvement in that respect... Over the ancient Romans. A more detailed examination of history might reveal some interesting facts about fluctuations in various cultures in this matter. Were we as bloodthirsty in the 15th century AD as the 5th century BC? Or now? I have no idea.

I don't even know what 'desensitised' actually _means_. Is it a bad thing? If it is a bad thing, then why?

Personally, I think if a gamer was confronted with real violence they'd probably be terrified. Gangs are the ones who are desensitised. I would comment on violent sports and on normal social groups, but I know little about them because I was too busy trying to kill Ganondorf.


----------



## Antihero

here is my answer to this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism


----------



## Ramako

Antihero said:


> here is my answer to this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism


Does that mean you are a nihilist???


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Ramako said:


> Does that mean you are a nihilist???


I know where they live..


----------



## BurningDesire

Ramako said:


> Well I think it is clear that people have always been fascinated by violence. There have always been sick people in the world. Somehow, I don't feel that people baying for blood in the Colosseum are on the same level as gamers baying for digital blood on a monitor/tv screen. We have seen a significant improvement in that respect... Over the ancient Romans. A more detailed examination of history might reveal some interesting facts about fluctuations in various cultures in this matter. Were we as bloodthirsty in the 15th century AD as the 5th century BC? Or now? I have no idea.
> 
> I don't even know what 'desensitised' actually _means_. Is it a bad thing? If it is a bad thing, then why?
> 
> Personally, I think if a gamer was confronted with real violence they'd probably be terrified. Gangs are the ones who are desensitised. I would comment on violent sports and on normal social groups, but I know little about them because I was too busy trying to kill Ganondorf.


Very well put Rammy.


----------



## LordBlackudder

Rather than desensitize I would say more away of the value of life and safer.

Some people are over cautions but at least we know when crimes are committed and whats going on in the world.

I don't see whats wrong with violence in art. The mothers that are petitioning and complaining about video games should be arrested and investigated by social services. They buy their kids 18+ games and seem to be not capable of looking after children.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

We're overstimulated, but all the stimulation is disposable and brainless. Violence is a red herring.


----------



## moody

Lukecash12 said:


> Actually, I would offer that in some ways we are less desensitized than people have been in the past, maybe even in most ways in some cases. Sure, we watch stuff happen on a screen with perfect understanding that it isn't actually happening, while people in ancient Rome would watch real people gut each other. Imagine if most of your children hadn't survived past 13, if your significant other died in childbirth... Come to think of it, when it comes to political legislature, to our norms and values, it strikes me that we actually have a lot more preference towards peace, toleration, and life than people did in the past. Sure, things can be pretty awful, but try comparing militant Islam today to the Moors, or any other religion or group for that matter. Think of colonialism, how desensitized they were to the basic value of life, how the slaves lived in India.


England colonised India and there were no slaves,where do you get this stuff ?


----------



## moody

moody said:


> England colonised India and there were no slaves,where do you get this stuff ?


Apparently there was some,it was done away with in 1843,strange never heard about it.


----------



## KenOC

Interesting. Slavery had always been present in India, but not because of the British colonizers. It was abolished in 1843 but lingered on. "The arrival of the British East India Company and the imposition of crown rule following the Indian Rebellion in 1857 along with the influence of the British anti-slavery society of William Wilberforce eventually brought slavery and the slave markets to an end in India."


----------



## Sid James

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Isn't reviving a desensitized culture an important _factor _in solving the world's problems? If culture is desensitized to injustice, will there ever be a move toward change _for _justice in this world?


I think the problem lies in these things being virtual, not real. I had relatives who went through the war, seeing these types of things was not theory or virtual reality to them, it was reality. But to people today, its no big deal. But I'm worried about our culture nurturing a tolerance for lack of empathy. Eg. the reptilian kind of sociopathic personality is now revered rather than seen as a problem. It crosses all boundaries, its not related to one profession. So I think we need to learn from the past, look at those people now too who are examples of what I'd call good human beings, not reptiles, not dog eat dog. The people who I admire cared for others, although they where not saints, they did good things. Gandhi is one, but there are others. With people like him, witnessing real atrocities and injustice made him to try and change things for the better. I think its good to be sensitive and have empathy, however many times I think in today's world, its more of a liability than an asset. Its a distorted world we live in. That's what I think in my more negative moods. But overall, there is hope, but it takes risks to show ourselves as human, not as some kind of reptilian without any regard for others needs.

Ok lecture over!...


----------



## Antihero

Sid James said:


> I think the problem lies in these things being virtual, not real. I had relatives who went through the war, seeing these types of things was not theory or virtual reality to them, it was reality. But to people today, its no big deal. But I'm worried about our culture nurturing a tolerance for lack of empathy. Eg. the reptilian kind of sociopathic personality is now revered rather than seen as a problem. It crosses all boundaries, its not related to one profession. So I think we need to learn from the past, look at those people now too who are examples of what I'd call good human beings, not reptiles, not dog eat dog. The people who I admire cared for others, although they where not saints, they did good things. Gandhi is one, but there are others. With people like him, witnessing real atrocities and injustice made him to try and change things for the better. I think its good to be sensitive and have empathy, however many times I think in today's world, its more of a liability than an asset. Its a distorted world we live in. That's what I think in my more negative moods. But overall, there is hope, but it takes risks to show ourselves as human, not as some kind of reptilian without any regard for others needs.
> 
> Ok lecture over!...


----------



## Sid James

^Can you please comment on what Ayn RAnd is saying, give me your opinion please, it is you that's answering me, not her (she's dead). Then we can have what I call a proper conversation. Thanks.


----------



## Crudblud

Sid James said:


> ^Can you please comment on what Ayn RAnd is saying, give me your opinion please, it is you that's answering me, not her (she's dead). Then we can have what I call a proper conversation. Thanks.


The Ayn Rand video is actually a step-up from the usual Wikipedia links, give it time.


----------



## BurningDesire

Our society isn't becoming desensitized. Take pretty much anybody who plays and enjoys violent video games, and put them in a situation of real violence, and most of them would be in over their heads, unless they had prior experience. We're still heavily affected by tragic incidents. If anything, our culture is far better than it was even 30 years ago. Racism, sexism, homophobia and all other forms of bigotry are being more and more often seen as bad things. People are becoming more sensitive to eachother. Things are far from perfect, but the bad things in our society that are worth talking about and worth trying to change are things like gay and trans people being treated like second-class citizens, and people and groups trying to thwart freedom of speech, not sexual and violent content in art.

So no. Our culture isn't becoming desensitized. The claims that it is are absurd and unfounded. Do some thinking and research before freaking out over a non-issue.


----------



## neoshredder

Values and faith in God have definitely dropped off. Every one is in such a rush as well. I really dislike the way people act in public places.


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> Values and faith in God have definitely dropped off. Every one is in such a rush as well. I really dislike the way people act in public places.


Values haven't dropped off. And loss of superstition isn't a negative thing. That is a positive progression.


----------



## neoshredder

BurningDesire said:


> Values haven't dropped off. And loss of superstition isn't a negative thing. That is a positive progression.


Just see how music is these days. It's horrible what they talk about. Especially in Hip Hop. And you are free to your beliefs (non-beliefs) but I don't share them.


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> Just see how music is these days. It's horrible what they talk about. Especially in Hip Hop. And you are free to your beliefs (non-beliefs) but I don't share them.


Thats not all music. Besides, unpleasant themes in art are nothing new. I mean, you like metal and hard rock right? There's way darker material in the lyrics of alot of metal than is in most hip-hop made nowadays. And how about older music with texts that deal with dark subjects. You wouldn't complain about Mark Twain for dealing with the subject of racism in his work, or Edgar Allen Poe for writing about murder and cruelty, would you? There's way more horrible stuff in Poe than in most hip-hop.

And I am free to my beliefs, and that is due to progress. In older times I would be in danger for not bending to the will of religious zealots, let alone my sexuality and other aspects of my beliefs and personality.


----------



## neoshredder

Most metal is not taken seriously. Other than basically a fun way to use your adrenaline and banging your head. The lyrics are hard to understand anyways. Hip Hop is more of a culture thing it seems. Sinning is basically brushed off as nothing. Which I guess suits me. lol But still, morality has dropped off due to this new freedom imo.


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> Most metal is not taken seriously. Other than basically a fun way to use your adrenaline and banging your head. The lyrics are hard to understand anyways. Hip Hop is more of a culture thing it seems. Sinning is basically brushed off as nothing. Which I guess suits me. lol But still, morality has dropped off due to this new freedom imo.


How. How has morality dropped off in any way? Bad things happen. People do bad stuff. This has always been the case. There was never some magical period in American history where this wasn't the case. However, there were some charming periods in our history when people weren't allowed to work in certain places because they were Irish, or that people were discriminated against because of the color of their skin, when women weren't allowed to vote and were expected to be a subservient class to men, where it was widely socially acceptable to ostracize and hurt gay/bi/trans people (and this is only recently starting to change, quite achingly slowly, and I might add that the thing that is sustaining that oppression and violation of human rights is religious faith that encourages homophobic and transphobic bigotry, among other things).


----------



## Sid James

neoshredder said:


> Values and faith in God have definitely dropped off. Every one is in such a rush as well. *I really dislike the way people act in public places*.


I see examples of that sometimes here. More often than not, you get a young woman telling her boyfriend or some sort of male friend to go away and leave her alone. But does the guy listen? No, he gets aggressive. So far, I've only seen incidents where the guy is verbally aggressive at her (not physically). My natural instinct as a guy is to kind of protect the girl from this bullying, say something to the guy like "leave her alone, mate." But I don't, because these things can get very dangerous.

So what I'm sayng is that this kind of behaviour becomes the norm. There are many angry young men around. Things contribute to this - unemployment or underemployment, alcohol, drugs, family dysfunction and so on. Its a problem how society seems to put up with this behaviour and fail to address the root causes. I don't think this is just about desensitisation to video game violence, or stuff like that in movies, its a bigger issue. & history shows us you don't get a good outcome when you got angry young men who feel disenfranchised and outsiders to the wider society.

I can unpack other things but I won't. But since I see this quite often on the streets here, I thought I'd add to your thoughts.


----------



## neoshredder

BurningDesire said:


> How. How has morality dropped off in any way? Bad things happen. People do bad stuff. This has always been the case. There was never some magical period in American history where this wasn't the case. However, there were some charming periods in our history when people weren't allowed to work in certain places because they were Irish, or that people were discriminated against because of the color of their skin, when women weren't allowed to vote and were expected to be a subservient class to men, where it was widely socially acceptable to ostracize and hurt gay/bi/trans people (and this is only recently starting to change, quite achingly slowly, and I might add that the thing that is sustaining that oppression and violation of human rights is religious faith that encourages homophobic and transphobic bigotry, among other things).


Religion encourages order and striving to be a better human being. It also recognizes that no one is perfect. Thus where GRACE comes into effect. How people abuse the religion is their fault and not the norm. And Christianity looks down on people for judging other people. That's the ironic thing about it. Yet people still find a way to judge. Matthew 7:5 "...first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ Cheer up guys - look for the opportunity here, like writing an opera or score about this stuff!!


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> Religion encourages order and striving to be a better human being. It also recognizes that no one is perfect. Thus where GRACE comes into effect. How people abuse the religion is their fault and not the norm. And Christianity looks down on people for judging other people. That's the ironic thing about it. Yet people still find a way to judge. Matthew 7:5 "...first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."


When the judgmental bigot is the majority, you can't say they're the outliers, that they're an anomaly. If bigoted zealots weren't the norm, there would be no issue with gay rights, or women's rights, or the rights of transgendered people. There are good people who are Christians who follow the very good teachings of Christ, who are good and generous and not judgmental, and don't force dogma on others, but they are not the norm. That or they just don't participate in any politics, and they just sit by and let things happen.


----------



## Sid James

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> ^ Cheer up guys - look for the opportunity here, like writing an opera or score about this stuff!!


You know, regarding what I was talking about before - having to avoid helping people from being bullied in the streets - I hear that apathy (or desensitisation by stealth?) in _Wozzeck_. Seriously. When Wozzeck is drowning in the lake, his oppressors the captain and doctor walk by. They notice what's going on, one of them says there must be person in there (possibly drowning?) but they get away as quickly as they can. "Komm zi, komm zi schnell" is the last line the captain speaks, and its chilling. Its a world without empathy, without humanity. Doesn't it have parallels with what would happen in that part of the world in the 1930's and '40's? & in relation to today, that fear and detachment, its there as well now, a good number of times I restrain myself from calling bullies to task on the street. Males who have seemingly turned into wild beasts. Ironic how we got all this technology, but we become apes. Anyway, I'll stop now, getting too negative here.


----------



## KenOC

Sid James said:


> Its a world without empathy, without humanity. Doesn't it have parallels with what would happen in that part of the world in the 1930's and '40's? & in relation to today, that fear and detachment, its there as well now, a good number of times I restrain myself from calling bullies to task on the street.


This has been noted in the past. Is anybody here old enough here to recall Kitty Genovese?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_genovese


----------



## Sid James

^^I did not know of that case, but that sort of thing is becoming more common here, but still there are people who risk their lives to help people in that sort of situation. Its very difficult today, people can be like sheep, but there are some who still defy this trend.


----------



## samurai

KenOC said:


> This has been noted in the past. Is anybody here old enough here to recall Kitty Genovese?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_genovese



I am, and I remember it well.


----------



## Ramako

pointless post...


----------



## Ralfy

Try works like Postman's _Technopoly_, which refers to commercial mass entertainment overwhelming the idea of the sacred. For violence, check out

"Why The 20th Century Was The Bloodiest Of All"

http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/why-the-20th-century-was-the-bloodiest-of-all/

especially the second chart.


----------



## Vaneyes

The Good Samaritan laws helped some with empathy, which of course is not much more than contemplation. Whether or not to get one's toes wet.


----------



## georgedelorean

It depends. Some people are stuffed shirts without any sense of humor about anyone or anything. Others have a very relaxed attitude without necessarily being laissez-faire, and others fall somewhere in the middle. I think it's more or less always been like that. However over time some from one group become more vocal than another. All in all though, the perception of such seems very much on a personal, case by case basis. I will say, however, that as time goes on we become more aware of what the original post was referring to.


----------



## TxllxT

*Battle of Stalingrad remembered*

Today it is exactly 75 years ago, that the battle of Stalingrad decided the fate of WWII.

How do Russians themselves remember those horrific times?

The song of Igor Rasterayev has English subtitles:


----------

