Virtues & Vices

[Cail]

Let me get this straight. Are you seriously arguing that our culture is violent because of the Second Amendment?

[Lord Mhoram]

First of all, it's a gross simplification to say that our culture is "violent." Secondly, I think that the Second Amendment has allowed for legislation and court rulings that make weaponry more easily accessible - and this undoubtedly contributes to the militancy in American society.

[Cail]

Except that it hasn't. There aren't roving bands of thugs or vigilantes all over the cities and countryside.

[Lord Mhoram]

Roving bands of thugs?! What are you talking about? I'm talking about cultural characteristics - manifested in American militarism, among other things.

[Cail]

I'm trying to nail you down. Every time I rebut your position, you change it. GTA is a result of the Second Amendment. That was your original point that you have yet to defend. You talk about a linkage between gun laws and violent entertainment, yet you only provide your opinion. Pliss posts two clear cases in which it has been decided that there is no linkage between entertainment and violent acts, yet you don't rebut it.

Other than being a gadfly, what are you trying to prove?

[Plissken]

You showed statistics on gun-related deaths. You have not provided anything other than your opinion linking gun laws and violent video games (that violent video games are the result of our gun laws). It's no secret you're not a fan of gun ownership. That's your right, but it doesn't make this about it.

Other factors?

-A climate of fear
-Repressed masculinity in an increasingly matriarchal society
-Sensationalism in the news
-An overwhelming sense of malaise since the end of the Cold War
-The stunning advances in technology which allow near-lifelike special effects and computer graphics
-A cultural affinity to the lone hero who overcomes tremendous odds
-A cultural violence fetish

Well, that about sums it up for me.

LM, I suppose whether or not you think this should be in the Close or the 'Tank depends on whether you think that the first two on this list are responsible for the last one, or if you think that everyone (except we brilliant few, of course) are so susceptible to their entertainment that media causes society and not the other way around.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that, at one point in my career, my Mom had to talk me down off the roof before I tested my theory that having a bath towel safety-pinned around my neck would allow me to fly. (Mom had not yet been influenced into believing that children don't make stupid decisions, you see. To be fair to her, Sitcom children were still at the Bobby Brady level of development, so she had not been trained to know how much smarter I was than she by all those lil' smartass TV brats we have today.)

Mom's logic was unassailable:

1) Our towels were blue.
2) Batman can't fly.
3) Even if we had red towels, Superman's kind of a dork.

My points are these:

1) Yes, kids can be influenced by media - if they are young, stupid, and/or delusional enough.

2) There is a great, and all-powerful cure for this: Adults.

3) Adults (who actually determine where our society will go) have a great tool in this battle: Experience.

Just as my mother knew that the usual "You're going to break your neck!" ploy had been used too many times on my Too Young To Really Believe Anything Bad Was Going To Happen ass, by the time I began raising a child (despite watching a shitload of bad programming in my formative years, mind!) I knew that my child wasn't smarter than I was.

4) Those children who don't have any adults in their lives may still gain enough experience to survive watching a movie without blowing anything up. Those who don't probably won't survive long enough to be much of a bother.

5) The rest of us will still be awaiting the next Batman movie with baited breath - and will likely never set out to save Gotham, even after seeing it. Hell, we might not even vote for laws that allow for Vigilante Justice, even if the vigilantes in question all have blue towels safety-pinned around their necks.

[Lord Mhoram]

Cail,

Trying to nail me down? Nice try, but non sequiturs are not going to "nail me down." Tell me, Cail, in what way was my post indicative of an America with "roving bands of thugs"? Do you realize how absurd that sounds?

As for the debate, you ascribe to me the position that GTA is a result of the Second Amendment. It's not that simple, in my opinion (admittedly). As I said, I think the Second Amendment has bred a more militant culture. We see this in American expansionism, exceptionalism, neoconservatism, etc., etc.

Now, I suggested that there was a link between this militarism and violent entertainment. You rightly pointed out that the entertainment is a recent development in American culture. I ceded this point twice, and let you explain yourself. You provided a list of other factors in this rise in entertainment.

I stood by my position (yes, I did not make a new one up) that precedents in American history of militarism, the Second Amendment being chief among them, ultimately allow for America's penchant for violent entertainment.

What is inconsistent about this? I realize you don't agree, I don't expect you to, but to insinuate as you do that I am being somehow intellectually dishonest is absurd.

[Plissken]

So your argument is: 2nd Amendment causes militarism, which causes violent video games and bad movies.

So society causes entertainment, and not the other way around? How did I manage to miss this in your earlier posts?

[Lord Mhoram]

Entertainment reflects society, is what I said. In other words, characteristics of society, developed in whatever way, can be seen in that society's entertainment. It's one portal of viewing a society's values.

[Plissken]

Right, but the question still remains: What is the reflection of? Clearly, they aren't a reflection of what is, so what are our more violent media forms reflecting?

[Lord Mhoram]

I just said this. It reflects a very long tradition of American militarism that has manifested itself in exceptionalism (a longstanding trend since well before our nation's founding), expansionism, and even neoconservatism, most recently. It reflects what has been dubbed (by others) as America's "gun culture" - wherein the possession and use of weaponry is not only condoned, but glorified.

[Plissken]

Yup.

Don't buy it.

Don't get me wrong, it's as serviceable a theory as any, but when I'm playing a video game, or watching a movie, or reading a really good translation of Beowulf (Seamus Heaney does it best!), or getting to see a Klimt painting in person, or even when I'm singing Livin' After Midnight at the top of my lungs in the shower, I'm not feeling that American Gun Culture is being glorified.

In fact, despite the wide range of cultures my favorite, most visceral entertainment comes from, the emotion is usually the same: Release.

[Lord Mhoram]

Fair enough.

You could say that about any cultural theory. They aren't something that you always feel aesthetically.

[Plissken]

No, but then, I don't think I'm all that different than most folks.

Also, this idea that the Second Amendment is related to violence in entertainment, if it is not directly contradicted by Scandinavian Death Metal and German Porn, it certainly doesn't take them into account.

[Lord Mhoram]

I don't follow.

[Plissken]

Violent entertainment isn't explained by America's Gun Culture, unless you either disregard the fact that some of the most extreme forms of violent entertainment come from entirely other cultures - or find a different explanation for it.

My explanation is somewhat more universal.

[The Laughing Man]

a topic on virtue, which we start out with aggression, which then turns to violence......anyone see a pattern here?

[Plissken]

...which turns into -- suf-fer-ing!

[The Laughing Man]

which almost ends in despair..........












and is then bumped by hope?

[Plissken]

...through laughter, usually!