Lost in Space
Some sports are more inherently violent than others. For example, there's little argument that boxing or MMA involve violence: you are literally trying to beat your opponent into submission or a KO. It doesn't get more explicit than that. Other sports, like American football or hockey, inherently contain some form of physical aggression, such as tackling or checking. Even basketball involves aggressive physical contact with opposing players.
There are obviously many sports that don't directly invoke violence. Generally one does not expect people to tackle or punch each other in baseball, golf, or cycling. On the other hand, shooting, archery, javelin throwing, and so on, while not directly violent against a person, are based on violent acts. One could even make the argument that bodybuilding is symbolic of violence, as powerful musculature is seen as reflecting the potential for physical aggression.
Fictional media (TV, movies, games, books, etc.) generally involves some form of escapism, allowing people to experience the adrenaline and catharsis of violence without actually participating in it. Psychological evidence largely seems to show that most forms of escapist violence are not inherently harmful, nor do they encourage or exacerbate violent behavior. The popularity of violence in media shows that there is a demand for it, and this goes back as far as storytelling itself.
The hypothesis that we should remove violence (broadly speaking) from our media as some form of curative or palliative to the violent tendencies of humans has absolutely zero evidence to support it. Now, obviously there are works that take it to an unhealthy extreme, just as there are people who do that, and we can have a conversation about how to regulate or moderate such things, but those are exceptions that can't be judged along with everything else.
Again, we need to consider that there are more forms of violence than physical. I've seen a lot of shows targeted at women that feature social violence, such as gossip and slander, and all the emotional trauma that comes with it. Bullying is another form of violence that features prominently in family media. While we are usually expected to sympathize with the victims, that doesn't change the fact that violence is being portrayed.
I didn't even discuss sexual violence, but that's all over the place as well. In fact, I can't think of a single piece of media that doesn't involve some kind of violence as the source of its conflict.
Heck, even eating involves violence, regardless of whether you believe plants have feelings.
The point of this conversation is to demonstrate that it is literally impossible to have zero violence.
Edited by Fighteer on Dec 29th 2019 at 11:06:12 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
The effects of violence in media on short and long term behavior is complex, according to the research. Very likely depictions of violence in media are one cultural narrative, which combine with other narratives children are exposed to, including those they receive from their parents, their peers at school, and other social institutions. We know that children model what they see, and that the broad behavioral tendencies we acquire in childhood continue later in life. Given all that, changing the way violence is portrayed in media (as a heroic solution to evil people) might very well have a positive net effect on our society as a whole. At the very least, there is no strong scientific consensus on the issue.
Lost in Space
Suggesting a change in the portrayal of violence as a social experiment in the absence of substantial scientific evidence is one thing. Declaring violence in media to be the cause of evil in society without proof is another. Not that you're doing that, but it's the principle.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Inconvenience
Well, effectively, any interaction is a form of violence (because when someone even boops someone elses' body or consciousness, forces are applied that are noticed by both's sensitivities), so it's impossible to have a world without it. But how (excessive) violence is defined depends on the ability to receive it, and the ability of others to dish it.
In the least violent imaginable world, everyone has an equal ability to cause violence, and if someone has problems and is subject to more violence, that someone would just relocate to another less violent area.
Laws restrict the ability of others to do violence, but needs to make its enforcers able to, ideally, receive more violence, and currently the trend is to make them able to do more violence to not have to receive it.
In addition, lawgivers are also very persistent so their violence reaches very far, and the laws are made for the State, and therefore, government wishes it to be enforced.
Hence, we currently live in a world filled by arbitrarily tremendous amounts of violence, as being subject to law enforcement is already extremely violent even to innocents. Everytime I imagine myself trapped into doing something illegal to survive or stay sane, I dream of the perpetual and desperate cycle of judiciary violence that follows, which makes me even more terrified of those trappings.
Such a level of violence is already neither sane nor bearable, but it is either taboo (by portraying criminals as always unreasonably bad guys, while people in general tend to rationality, hence the former's dehumanization) or glorified (despite Police Brutality).
As law is not absolute, however (it can still be technically crossed) and causes people to cross it due to its imperfections, its justice somehow breeds injustice: so law is seen as a way not to lessen violence, but as arbitrary denial of the ability to cause it (as is, all perceived-as-excessive violence that Law let slide is seen as lawful even when it's illegal), causing a lot of pain
.
Truth is, humans' ability to cause violence has strengthened through history, whether by their weapons, by their ability to lie (Native Americans got genocided mostly because of it), by their ability to use hierarchy to control others... While ability to control or lessen violent impulses, contain sources of violence, or find other ways to cause friendlier dispositions have barely increased since the first civilizations !
We can see it white as day concerning nuclear disarmament: despite widespread protest against nuclear weaponry, it proliferated (because of the Cold War) and became even more advanced and destructive to the point the reason it is not used is that it could very well destroy the entire planet and kill every human if it's used in a worldwide war).
Reasons to compete and hurt one another abound so much that competitive sports, even violent ones, are considered welcome respites compared to the arms race that we all live in, while most of us are still struggling to define, find love, or even finding a way to concile ourselves with the existence of others (many people being still solipsists).
Even I (who's living a very nonviolent and innocent life) feel living in an arms race, constantly struggling against things that are becoming stronger day after day, escalating in sheer scope as years pass.
I used to be a patriot, now I despite the government. I thought the greatest laws ever made, like human rights, were enforced, I discover they are only "vague and aspirational norms". I used to believe everyone walked towards progress, I discover I'm a tiny minority. I used to believe I had a bright future full of love, I discover I am a passive genocide's target and destined to be an incel (but Screw Destiny, don't worry).
And as I see entire struggles go by, I discover them to be mere palliatives to bigger problems and threats that could crush them like their acts and fights were child's play. But I'm digressing a little bit much and going in a really wild tangent here, only to show that ironically, we need more depictions of violence, because we live buried in hidden violence. Most struggles we see in mainstream media are childish and naive: but if people knew the violences perpetrated against the "poorest" of them, they'd unite and fight against it and find answers to the really big problems. (But that, of course, would mean someone higher up would realize and go with that, which is improbable.)
Edited by acuddle on Jan 11th 2020 at 2:42:28 PM
Sorry for any inconvenience I've caused by ever writing here.
I think defining violence as any interaction at all renders the term meaningless.
Lost in Space
True, but the problem then becomes one of defining terms so as to include some forms of it while excluding others and still have a philosophically useful discussion. Saying "violence is bad" is an epistemically empty statement. It contains no meat, no meaningful starting point; the best it can do is send people off onto tangents driven by their personal bugaboos.
My anecdotal evidence is the previous post ![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
. It is such a sweeping and emotionally charged verbal outpouring that there's no part of it that one can easily grab onto and debate. As a rationale for libertarianism, it's a mess, and as a statement of personal belief, it's also a mess.
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 13th 2020 at 12:05:55 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
"Well, effectively, any interaction is a form of violence (because when someone even boops someone elses' body or consciousness, forces are applied that are noticed by both's sensitivities), so it's impossible to have a world without it. But how (excessive) violence is defined depends on the ability to receive it, and the ability of others to dish it."
As definitions go, this isn't terrible. It implies that violence is inherent in the use of unequal power to control or exploit other people. Thus, the greater the disparity in power between two parties in a given situation, the greater the potential for violence. It also implies that the solution to violence is reducing power disparity between parties in as many situations as possible. This is basically an argument against privilege, although it isn't clear to me if the writer is aware of that.
Historically, it should be noted that deaths by violence have been decreasing for hundreds of years. We live in a significantly safer world now than our ancestors did (regardless of which particular set of ancestors you derive from). This has been attributed to the rise of the rule of law, and other civilizing institutions such as public education and the diversifying nature of the labor economy. The role of the law, in particular, has been to reduce disparities in political power, since more and more people have been included within the rights of citizenship. With luck, we have seen our last violent overthrow of a major governing power (because that isn't necessary anymore). We are currently experiencing a backlash against democracy, but I don't expect that to last (it's "the worst form of government except for all the alternatives" and all that).
There are specific exceptions to the general trend, however. Police brutality is a function of the fear of the minority by the majority, which, if you follow Durkheim's theory of social solidarity, is more responsive to the perception of disruptive social change than the actual risk of crime. We live in turbulent times, and hence social anxiety is on the rise, and consequently people look to the threat of retributive violence to protect their in-groups from external sources of disruptive change. This is true on all sides of the political spectrum (thus, the backlash against democracy).
Labor as a whole isn't getting less valuable, however (as evidenced by the proportion of business gross revenue that goes to payroll, which is quite high), so ignoring the political needs of ever larger swaths of the population isn't politically sustainable in the long run. The rich and the powerful must make accommodation with the needs of the poor and the middle class or suffer the historical fate of elites in the past. A similar argument can be made with respect to people of color.
But these things change very slowly. It could be until the end of the century before we see the pendulum swing again, and social violence (political disparity) decline. We should concern ourselves with how to make the process as quick and painless as possible.
Lost in Space
Or, depending on how you perceive things, to accelerate it as quickly as possible to get the revolution over with, like ripping off the Band-Aid brand adhesive bandage instead of removing it slowly. Not that I agree with this point of view, but it is a philosophical argument that can't be trivially dismissed.
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 13th 2020 at 2:10:24 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Depends on the value one places on innocent lives.
Lost in Space
If it takes 80 years for things to get better naturally, and a billion people die (preventably) during that time, is that better or worse than 200 million people dying in 10 years via deliberate act to achieve the same end? (Tweak the numbers as needed; I pulled them out of my hat.) It's the trolley problem writ large. Is this not a fundamentally utilitarian argument?
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 13th 2020 at 6:57:59 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Shin Megami Tensei IV
For starters. Comparing that with a trolley issue implies that your solution is totally workable.
Which isn't, so the criticism. The reason why Violent Revolution don't exist anymore is because the average person isn't literally starving, the average person has A LOT to lose for a possible improvement that might even not exist.
If you have a super reliable prophecy that legit says that killing X number of people will lead to utopia? Go for it. But we don't so your risking a lot for a utopian pipe drem
Actual Utilitarians go.for the Center Left, Peter Singer wrote a damn book talking about how Center Left ideas are actually the best ones. The Revolutionary dreams? They proved be useless at best, destructive as worst
Edited by KazuyaProta on Jan 13th 2020 at 7:55:50 AM
Watch me destroying my country
Lost in Space
I'm speaking very abstractly. If the plan is extremely likely to fail, that weights against it. But the trolley problem in its basic form ignores those externalities. The outcome of each action is fully known; the question is whether it is moral to kill some number of people deliberately in order to save a larger number of people from accidental death.
Obviously, in the real world, there's no way to know if your revolution will succeed, and therefore starting one in the hopes that it'll make things better faster is not a great plan. However, it is equally difficult to tell if the "natural progression" of events will lead to making thing better. What if the world goes completely to hell if you don't have a revolution? What if the revolution is inevitable given the course of events, and your only choice is when and where to start it (aka the Dune problem)? There are too many variables.
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 13th 2020 at 7:56:04 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
That's not the dilemma I posed. The question is between continuing to ignore the needs of a major segment of the human population, with increasing probability of a preventable revolution, or reforming one's policy now, with increasing probability of a sustainable political-economy (though with giving up certain short-term profits).
Lost in Space
Oh, so you're talking about the "reverse trolley problem", to coin a phrase. Well, there are externalities to that one as well, such as whether you can gather enough agreement to "fix things now", as it were.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Right now the answer is no. But as things get worse, popular opinion will change, as it has before. Shall we have a shorter, less painful transition to a sustainable world economy, or a longer more costly one? That will depend on the charisma and vision of future leaders.
Formerly G.G.
Why some people hate postmodernism especially when it comes to literary or political criticisms? Also, how do you avoid making strawmen on postmodernism?
"Eratoeir is a Gangsta."
Because they're vacuous reactionary anti-intellectuals who are using "post-modernism" as a modern version of Cultural Bolshevism. I.e the evil modern thing which is corrupting academia, society, and the state.
In other words, normal far-right stupidity.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on May 7th 2020 at 12:25:50 PM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Sometimes a philosophical movement is too sucessful, it's core values become absorbed into the mainstream, and it no longer serves a purpose as a standalone philosophy. I would argue that no one is a "modernist" anymore, in the sense of regarding contemporary society as inherently superior to the past, or that history is a story of consistent objective progress. The whole idea of cultural "progress" has been called into question, multiculteralism having more or less killed it. Samuel Huntington was perhaps the last real modernist.
I'm not overly fond of Postmodernism since, to my understanding, it's largely a rejection of values about things like objective reality, rationalism, science, etc. In other words, it's a post-truth philosophy.
"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"
It became one, because only by becoming every more extreme could it maintain relevance. But in the beginning, it was a simple recognition of the changes in perspective that occurred in the wake of WWI.
Incoming wall of text, sorry about that.
When we talk about post-modernism, what we often mean by ‘modernism’ is the Industrial Age, and that has been subsiding in the late 20th century. Modern could term more precisely that dealing with various issues and problems of the day, in the mode of the day, using the up-to-date knowledge available with the most efficient tools available, updating our mentalities to adapt to both reality and our knowledge of it. Being modern will often be mocked by its detractors, as following the latest fashion (à la mode), the newest fad, then moving to the next one; while sensible traditionalists follow the truly timeless ways of our revered ancestors, our pious predecessors. See, hear, and laugh at Socrates railing against writing, every other evening at Stavro’s Comedy Tavern.
Since we are creatures of habit, we like to cling to older, often obsolete tools, let alone ideas. We still carry around much of the mentalities we developed from the palaeolithic to the neolithic, with substantial additions from the Bronze and Iron Ages, a veneer of Renaissance and some fine powder added since the Enlightenment.
Up till the Industrial Age, the most developed cultures of the time were still much in continuity from the Bronze Age onwards, following traditions, which some would say all form one encompassing Tradition, according to which there is some timeless and eternal formula of supernatural origin, be it whichever deity or no deity, whose knowledge is totally descriptive of all there is, and totally prescriptive of all we ought to do with it all.
When faced with natural phenomena and events we know nothing about, we will speculate about it and settle for some hand waived explanation that seems plausible to us at that moment, and the supernatural will seem more plausible to ancient us than the latter scientific discoveries (e. g.: “begone, evilution! Etc.”). These explanations become whole systems of beliefs which are often the foundations of our collective identities, from tribal to ethnic to religious to imperial, and these collective identities are most precious to us.
Traditional cultures often tell ourselves and our world to us, as one big story, or narrative as we like to call those in recent decades, with some beginning, a plot and the subplots it will bind, and an end. And often these narratives will be about the exceptional destiny of our tribe, ethnos, creed, and empire. Yet reality is not reducible to a play, or a story, or a narrative, it is a coherent whole without plot holes, one where suspension of disbelief won’t hunt.
And one of the recurring themes in so many of our cultures’ stories is indeed an end to this reality. Hoping for a happy ending, we’ll settle for a downer one just as well, just let it end already!
The Industrial Age was a rupture from Tradition, whose first signs could be be seen with the spreading of the printing press, the coming to the fore of the scientific method, while the religious notion of Divine Right was being discredited, what with the bloody wars it pretexted; enabling the philosophers of the Enlightenment, just in time for the steam machine, the railroad, the telegraph…
Tradition was fighting back of course, what with the reactionary intellectuals seeking to restore if not the Bourbons at the Throne, then at least some eternal certainties of our forefathers. But new ideologies were emerging as well, and they seemed to share still, a conviction that all this was still one big story unfolding. This time, Mother Nature was often substitute to God the Father, i e: Natural Right vs Divine Right; but often they’d find some accommodation of coexistence as long as it preserved the established order and the hierarchies therein.
These ideologies proposed new certainties, the unstoppable march of progress that will bring a solution to all our social ills same as new medicines for all illnesses. And soon we shall know all there is to know. Some ideologies went further, claiming the same as traditional religions, a formula that is totally descriptive of all there is, and totally prescriptive of all we ought to do with it all. Hence totalitarian, and they made promises.
As rapid change brought a questioning of the old order, many were hoping for a tangible improvement of their lot in life, which these ideologies offered answers to, some positive some negative.
The two World Wars and one Great Depression made mince meat of these, and in 1945 it seemed to many of us that civilisation had failed, and that while the Axis were definitely evil, the victorious Allies weren’t quite the good guys.
Then we exerted valiant effort at redeeming ourselves, particularly where liberal democracy allowed it, which was as courageous as it was encouraging. and for a while it was better, ish. Many of us here and now still enjoy the outcomes of this effort. But less so as time passes.
The prosperity of the Thirty Glorious Years, and the wave of emancipation it brought to so many did offer some relief, but all certainties were gone. And the rebellious youth born into that age of plenty soon questioned their very questioning. And for many of this and our following generations, the certainties of the past we the go-to ones by default, be it Old Time Religion, the values of the Gilded Age but with tech, whatever seemed to make us happy.
While the scientific method is still the only reliable means to understand reality, we cannot hope to possess truth let alone own reality any longer, we’ll never know it all, and what we know won’t make us happy. We still see the wicked prosper while the righteous despair; so “fuck reality!” becomes a commonplace rallying cry.
So if it makes us happy, why bother with reality, if perception will do? Facts and evidence won’t give us solace, but a pleasant illusion for whatever time one has left seems to do the trick. So we rebel against modernism while claiming to be post-it, like we be over a once beloved Broken Pedestal. Yet those who decry post-modernism most loudly are the ones yearning for the Bad Old Days, whether they wish to restore Khilafah or to make Eagleland “great again.”
But that is just the background to the rehashing of the very same ideas of century and a half ago, ones a Briton would call Victorian, though we could call them Wilhelmine just as well, or Thierrarde (cf. Adolphe Thiers), or J.P. Morganic if one must; the very ideas which made the first half of last century an (almost) never ending horror story. All the while, our traditional cultures still beat the drums calling for an ending to this story of ours, if not a happy then a downer one, if not with a bang then with a whimper. Given the very powerful means of destruction now at our disposal, let alone our self-destructive attitude towards our environment and our neighbours, our chances at survival as a species don’t look all that swell.
DeMarquis you wrote:
for Modernism. "...Modernism was a philosophical movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that was based on an underlying belief in the progress of society."Further excerpt from your link:
If by ‘Modernism’ one means the belief in the preordained inevitability of the progress of society, then that is specific to the Industrial Age, and is all gone now. If one means by it the human ability to achieve progress of society, to move forward, which is disputed by traditionalists, then this philosophical stance is a distinct one which predates the Industrial Age and its deterministic belief in progress above; in which case ‘Postmodernism’ would be merely traditionalism in some sci-fi cosplay.
You added:
If the former quite so, if the latter not quite though that seems to be the fashion of the day, what with “no reality but my perception” and the resurgent legions of Flat-Earthers and anti-vaxxers it begets.
This said, “united in rejection” seems flimsy, philosophy-wise. Perhaps confusedism might be a more apt term which stands for something else besides what it rejects?
Edited by AlityrosThePhilosopher on May 8th 2020 at 5:11:22 PM
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend
Postmodernism is basically a reaction to the objectivity of modernist philosophy in that it rejects any sort of objective reality, in favor of the idea that reality is constructed by individuals and societies. That’s the central conceit here, it’s not necessarily a rejection of the idea of progress.
The issue with postmodernism is that it’s ultimately self-defeating. If there’s no such thing as reality there can be no analysis, which is a problem for something that’s ostensibly an analytical style.
Edited by archonspeaks on May 8th 2020 at 7:05:38 AM
They should have sent a poet.
Ok, since no one else picked up on my questions, I guess I will. A dictionary will define violence as behavior intended to cause harm to another person. That seems a bit restrictive, as no sport or movie would qualify as "violent" by that definition (seems to be a synonym for "assault"). I've seen it used in certain circles as "any act of exploitation or oppression (communities of color often use it this way). Racism is violent by that definition, as is capitalism, but Im not sure a sport would be (well, except from a business perspective). Why do the martial arts strike people as violent? I don't think it has anything to do with the statistical risk of physical injury to the participants.
I propose that the term "violence" is used by people to describe not just certain actions, but feelings and emotions as well. In fact the feelings are primary—people seem to be assuming that violent feelings lead to violent actions, and therefore anything which inspires violent emotions in people will increase the chance of people acting violently, and should be condemned. This is exactly why many people protest against the glorification of violence in television (and there is support for this position in research).
By this standard, there is a coherent argument against violence as it is typically portrayed in movies or on TV, not so much in sports.