![[RSS]](http://tweakimg.net/g/if/v2/icons/rss_small.png){kind=icon}
![[quick]](http://tweakimg.net/g/if/icons/world_link.png){kind=icon}
Mr. Miyagi was wrong: Manhunt 2 and FoS Freaks
This theory probably would work out pretty well if nobody would think that their side is better than the other side. Nowadays its better not to walk on the road at all.Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later... get squish just like grape.
... a ... am I sensitive to violence in games and movies?... no...
I don't think so... I don't feel the need to smash my co-workers head with my coffee cup nor the need to kill somebody with the scissors in my top drawer... Can I visualize how to do it? Yes, no problem - I've seen it dozens of times. Would I do it? Not in this lifetime.
But wait. Do you remember when you got so angry you smashed your fist against the wall? I wonder who taught you that, was it a movie? Your brother? New experiences create new possibilities, for you shape your being to what know.
Manhunt 2
By the end of this month, Manhunt 2 will be available in stores all over Europe. This 2nd installment of what is known als worlds' most violent game is probably the ultimate form of freedom of speech in video game history. Get ready to take your claw hammer and smash it into the head of a randomly chosen person. I would go for the person in green, because it reminds me of the school bully and my boss.
I have my own opinion about the heavy discussions about the pros and cons of all parties. Proven or not proven, I don't care. But do you see yourself as a person who thinks about these things? Yes? Then this discussion is not about you!
You are arguing with people who are the same. Thinkers. Now think about that.
About Manhunt (2), only one question is leading in my opinion:
Does explicit visual violence lower your shock level?
The first time I saw a dead pigeon next to the road I was shocked. Last week I had one flying against my car. I took a life. I didn't break. A selfish but natural act of self-defense. Me or the damn bird.
I don't care.
Does explicit visual violence lower your shock level? Definately.
Things change, morals change. Apparently empathic capacity changes too.
We teach our kids listen to trust the newsmedia, see the value of money, value your freedom of speech, think in boxes, smoking is bad. We are teaching our kids to walk on either side of the road, without thinking. Hopefully adults see the difference between fiction, reality, teachings and entertainment. But somewhere I highly doubt it. It's easier to exclamate that I - the individual - am not affected by this.
And when you are sure that 16 year old teenagers can make their own rational decisions? Think about Youtube violence, jackass imitations, group rape, babies in microwaves, drug overdoses, racism and other forms of extremisms. People are stupid and do need guidance.
Drinking alcohol, driving cars, mariage are all restricted by age through law's. But is that also an attack on our freedom of speech? Is driving a car a freedom of speech? Is there a difference with viewing and interacting violent games?
Censorship in the way of restricting another persons ability to speak their thoughts? No. But censorship in a way of protecting kids who until they have a clear judgement what's going on in the world... I don't know.
FoS Freaks
"Nineteen Eighty-Four!" is wat they scream. "You can't control what I do, watch, eat, think!"
The FoS (Freedom of Speech) Freaks value their own judgement and reject all that is trying to create an overall scheme. Get rid of pre-defined values and morals, pre-defined rules of engagement, pre-defined hierarchies. This Liberatarian point of view is often spoken of, but rarely understood.
It isn't in Human's capability to achieve an equillibrium in society. Not through a dictature, not through mind-reading super computers, not through 1001 hidden cameras or even some crazy drug that everybody is forced to take. Liberatarian's believe that this equillibrium is created through personal values, own judgement and the reduction of governments to only a minimum.
Will that ever happen? A society without greed, violence, envy and of course rules? I don't know, especially with our all-mighty monetaire belief-system. Mankind needs to be placed in boxes. It can't function without a pre-defined identity. It needs to fight. Needs to be jealous. Needs to be better. Needs to have more.
Even FoS Freaks have simply become a separate political flow which is just as anarchic as the hippies and punk subculture. A few visionaries and a lot of non-thinking followers, thinking in boxes. Exactly as their suit 'n tie wearing opposites.
Stop quoting a book you haven't even read, stop quoting a book you've read but didn't understand and most of all, stop quoting a book that has politically absolutely no meaning. The book has been written by a polemic novelist looking for the boundaries in a fictous society. Use it as brain food, not as a bible.'If we continue this way we'll end up like 1984!'
That was once a right which was valued by the thinkers and writers, now has become a self-defense weapon against 'acting before thinking'.
Think. Act. Think. React.
 10-'08
|
Adware irritatie |
Comments
By
bsbfx,
Friday 10 October 2008 13:57
In the case of children there is a certain need for censorship. How much censorship is needed and on what is a point for debate. However there is one major problem with censorship for the sake of the kids and that is that the censorship for the kids also directly impacts on the people that have reached the age of which we expect them to be able to make certain decisions for themselves. Especially when it comes to movies and games do these limitations apply.
The people that wish to censor certain things are in most cases the people that also have a certain influence on what gets censored. However these people are extremely cunning as they know that if they take censorship too far people will "revolt" against them. So instead they create a system that consists of multiple concepts we as a people on their own accept as sensible and than sculpt them in such a fashion they achieve their ultimate goal, which is stop the creation of certain materials they deem unsuitable.
They know very well that creating things like a movie or a computer game costs a lot of money and the people involved will expect a certain return for their investment.
People accept that some form of censorship is needed to protect young children.
They also have influence on certain large retail chains that have instated certain policies which ensures that if products are of a certain rating they cannot be sold in those stores. Which sounds very "sensible" for a "family friendly" store and we call accept this without question.
However if you put the building blocks together you effectively get a system in which they do not forbid you to create the content or ban the sale of it they just ensure that if you do not fit within their criteria you will not be able to sell your product at any of the larger retail chains. Especially in the age when sales online weren't as big as they are now this was an effective death sentence. You either couldn't get the money to create it or if you did get the money together there would be considerable pressure from your investors to ensure that product can be sold in the major retail chains and create sufficient revenue.
So instead of outright banning certain things which would cause a "revolt" they applied some capitalistic censorship which ensures the "most offensive" things don't even get made to begin with.
The people that wish to censor certain things are in most cases the people that also have a certain influence on what gets censored. However these people are extremely cunning as they know that if they take censorship too far people will "revolt" against them. So instead they create a system that consists of multiple concepts we as a people on their own accept as sensible and than sculpt them in such a fashion they achieve their ultimate goal, which is stop the creation of certain materials they deem unsuitable.
They know very well that creating things like a movie or a computer game costs a lot of money and the people involved will expect a certain return for their investment.
People accept that some form of censorship is needed to protect young children.
They also have influence on certain large retail chains that have instated certain policies which ensures that if products are of a certain rating they cannot be sold in those stores. Which sounds very "sensible" for a "family friendly" store and we call accept this without question.
However if you put the building blocks together you effectively get a system in which they do not forbid you to create the content or ban the sale of it they just ensure that if you do not fit within their criteria you will not be able to sell your product at any of the larger retail chains. Especially in the age when sales online weren't as big as they are now this was an effective death sentence. You either couldn't get the money to create it or if you did get the money together there would be considerable pressure from your investors to ensure that product can be sold in the major retail chains and create sufficient revenue.
So instead of outright banning certain things which would cause a "revolt" they applied some capitalistic censorship which ensures the "most offensive" things don't even get made to begin with.
By
woekele,
Friday 10 October 2008 15:19
I don't think this is specific to violence. It's a common result of experience (in whatever field). Once you've seen something, you can handle it better next time.Does explicit visual violence lower your shock level? Definately.
Medical personnel see a lot of blood and because they are used to it, they can perform their life-saving jobs without problems.
Military Police has seen violence and can act against it when it happens instead of just being shocked and frozen because of it.
So I agree that shock levels become lower after seeing violence, I just don't think it's a bad thing.
By
kalechinees,
Friday 10 October 2008 15:57
@bsbfx
The problem is that games and movies (99%) is not art. Or at least, not seen as art by the government. If an organisation such as PEGI or USK is allowed to judge art into an age indication, the freedom of speech is lost.
[Liberatarian view]
If nobody would believe in censorship, we would need to find other solutions to 'manage' the thoughts and actions of our kids... We would need to make them consious about the world and the difference between fiction violence/sex/etc and reality.
Censorship is a way to keep people stupid for they don't want to think for themselves of for their children.
[/Liberatarian view]
^^
The above may be a utopia since current society is totally not capable of handling such freedom. The solution? I have no idea. It's either 100% art / 0% censorship or <1% censor and 0% art.
But still... if kids start killing each other over computer games... we need to do something.
@woekele
The problem itself is not becoming invulnerable to violence. It's that in combination of idolization and rewarding the violence (Xbox Achievement Points for 100 people killed by stabbing
). With daily exposure to this interactive violence make the action of (digitally) slaughtering people as common as buying coffee.
When one is sensible and self-consious there is no problem (just as we talk about it) but most people don't have the knowledge or mental capability to put these things in perspective.
This is also the reason lots of war veterans / cops / bouncers are quickly to use violence to solve everyday issues. See the rate of domestic violence used by these guys.
The problem is that games and movies (99%) is not art. Or at least, not seen as art by the government. If an organisation such as PEGI or USK is allowed to judge art into an age indication, the freedom of speech is lost.
[Liberatarian view]
If nobody would believe in censorship, we would need to find other solutions to 'manage' the thoughts and actions of our kids... We would need to make them consious about the world and the difference between fiction violence/sex/etc and reality.
Censorship is a way to keep people stupid for they don't want to think for themselves of for their children.
[/Liberatarian view]
^^
The above may be a utopia since current society is totally not capable of handling such freedom. The solution? I have no idea. It's either 100% art / 0% censorship or <1% censor and 0% art.
But still... if kids start killing each other over computer games... we need to do something.
@woekele
The problem itself is not becoming invulnerable to violence. It's that in combination of idolization and rewarding the violence (Xbox Achievement Points for 100 people killed by stabbing
). With daily exposure to this interactive violence make the action of (digitally) slaughtering people as common as buying coffee.When one is sensible and self-consious there is no problem (just as we talk about it) but most people don't have the knowledge or mental capability to put these things in perspective.
This is also the reason lots of war veterans / cops / bouncers are quickly to use violence to solve everyday issues. See the rate of domestic violence used by these guys.