Taking dancing on your grave to a new level...

[j_b]

hmm - gotta think that somelke 85% of the teenage guys i teach are playing "call of duty" and fantasizing about zombie-apocalypses and not too far away from pissing on their own first kill...

 

"Indeed, today many video games are actually replicating military training and conditioning kids to kill"

manufacturing contempt

 

 

Edited January 13, 2012 by j_b

[ivan]

hmm - gotta think that somelke 85% of the teenage guys i teach are playing "call of duty" and fantasizing about zombie-apocalypses and not too far away from pissing on their own first kill...

 

"Indeed, today many video games are actually replicating military training and conditioning kids to kill"

manufacturing contempt

 

what about the kids in the 50s playing cowboys n' indians?

 

i don't think the modern game industry is doing much more than making a buck stoking a fire that was already burning...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

hmm - gotta think that somelke 85% of the teenage guys i teach are playing "call of duty" and fantasizing about zombie-apocalypses and not too far away from pissing on their own first kill...

 

"Indeed, today many video games are actually replicating military training and conditioning kids to kill"

manufacturing contempt

 

 

what about the kids in the 50s playing cowboys n' indians?

 

i don't think the modern game industry is doing much more than making a buck stoking a fire that was already burning...

 

j_bot can't relate: he played with dolls and "My Little Pony" as a youngster.

[j_b]

what a fucking moron you are KKK.

[j_b]

what about the kids in the 50s playing cowboys n' indians?

 

i don't think the modern game industry is doing much more than making a buck stoking a fire that was already burning...

 

It appears that you are not appreciating the role of repetition and ever more graphic images in desensitization.

[ivan]

what about the kids in the 50s playing cowboys n' indians?

 

i don't think the modern game industry is doing much more than making a buck stoking a fire that was already burning...

 

It appears that you are not appreciating the role of repetition and ever more graphic images in desensitization.

more like pointing out that it's evolution in action - sure, you can bitch about it, but that's the nature of life. it's not rose water flowing through our veins...

[j_b]

huh? what are you saying?

[j_b]

[video:youtube]v=kUEGHdQO7WA

[KaskadskyjKozak]

huh? what are you saying?

 

what a fucking moron you are

[j_b]

whenever you have an actual rebuttal, do let us know. In the meantime? get lost, wanker!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

whenever you have an actual rebuttal, do let us know. In the meantime? get lost, wanker!

 

huh? what are you saying?

[j_b]

trolling on the internet for years on end must be a sign of happiness and mental stability ... Don't kick the dog when you get home.

Edited January 13, 2012 by j_b

[KaskadskyjKozak]

trolling on the internet for years on end must be a sign of happiness and mental stability ... Don't kick the dog when you get home.

 

Simon says: "type a stupid response"

[j_b]

Honestly, even when ignoring your obvious intent, the trolling behavior itself points to some deep problems. Get some help.

[ivan]

huh? what are you saying?

- humans have been killing each other since caine and abel

-humans have been desenstizing themselves to kill since then too

-as humans have evolved, they have become both better at killing each other and in preparing themselves to kill each other

-therefore, complaining about violent video games, a product of human evolution, is pretty much just complaining about the weather or any other natural phenomena

 

that said, we are to some extent masters of our own evolution, and we have worked out some reasonable restraints on our primal instincts: sports, international treaties, internet porn, rule of law, etc. sure, banning violent video games might fall into that category, but you're still fighting an uphill battle.

Edited January 13, 2012 by ivan

[j_b]

In other words, you are denying the effectiveness of soldier desensitization training despite the overwhelming evidence.

 

I never suggested to ban violent video games although I probably wouldn't let one near my growing kid if I had one (the same way I didn't let them watch everything on TV)

Edited January 13, 2012 by j_b

[JayB]

This is all arm-chair analysis from my end, but I have to wonder how the average person posting from the comfort of their chaise-lounges would hold-up after months and months of foot patrols in Afghanistan while folks as ruthless, barbaric, and merciless as the Taliban try to kill them every day.

 

The times I've really been afraid for my life have been the results of my own misjudgments and the only thing doing me in was the serene indifference of natural law, but even that felt personal at the time. Thankfully I've never had anyone out to kill me, but even feeling persistently threatened by someone in ways that seem credible can bring out some fairly primitive feelings mighty fast.

 

What dross! Countless studies have shown that through ww2 ~80% of soldiers refused to kill the enemy. Only after thoroughly dehumanizing desensitization training programs were introduced has this ratio changed.

 

manufacturing contempt

 

Have there really been "countless studies" confirming that even people being shot at won't return fire?

 

Isn't it more like there's a controversial statistical claim made by a single author?

http://warchronicle.com/us/combat_historians_wwii/marshallfire.htm

 

It'd be good news for humanity if his claims about the extreme reluctance of humans to kill other humans, even when someone else is actively trying to kill them happen to be true. The entire record of humanity from pre-history onwards seems to suggest that people are reluctant to kill under some cirumstances, and far less so in others.

http://www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126

 

I'm skeptical of the claim that "when other people are actively trying to kill them" is one of the situations where people are generally reluctant to use lethal force.

 

There is actually good evidence that violence has actually been trending erratically downwards for at least a few centuries, and that things like rising prosperity, communication, travel, trade, the spread of liberal values, etc - rather than an inborn extreme reluctance to use violence under any circumstances - are behind the trend.

 

[ivan]

In other words, you are denying the effectiveness of soldier desensitization training despite the overwhelming evidence.

 

no, i'm not saying that. obviously our soldiers are good at killing people and have been for a long time. the sick fucks at sand creek in 1864 oughta be a fine example of that.

 

more like saying that it's not the military so much as society in general that prepares people to kill. obviously the military builds on that burgeoning skill, and for good reasons - soldiers who won't shoot straight are just as useless as ones who can't, no?

[wetslide]

This is all arm-chair analysis from my end, but I have to wonder how the average person posting from the comfort of their chaise-lounges would hold-up after months and months of foot patrols in Afghanistan while folks as ruthless, barbaric, and merciless as the Taliban try to kill them every day.

 

The times I've really been afraid for my life have been the results of my own misjudgments and the only thing doing me in was the serene indifference of natural law, but even that felt personal at the time. Thankfully I've never had anyone out to kill me, but even feeling persistently threatened by someone in ways that seem credible can bring out some fairly primitive feelings mighty fast.

 

What dross! Countless studies have shown that through ww2 ~80% of soldiers refused to kill the enemy. Only after thoroughly dehumanizing desensitization training programs were introduced has this ratio changed.

 

manufacturing contempt

 

Have there really been "countless studies" confirming that even people being shot at won't return fire?

 

Isn't it more like there's a controversial statistical claim made by a single author?

http://warchronicle.com/us/combat_historians_wwii/marshallfire.htm

 

It'd be good news for humanity if his claims about the extreme reluctance of humans to kill other humans, even when someone else is actively trying to kill them happen to be true. The entire record of humanity from pre-history onwards seems to suggest that people are reluctant to kill under some cirumstances, and far less so in others.

 

I'm skeptical of the claim that "when other people are actively trying to kill them" is one of the situations where people are generally reluctant to use lethal force.

 

There is actually good evidence that violence has actually been trending erratically downwards for at least a few centuries, and that things like rising prosperity, communication, travel, trade, the spread of liberal values, etc - rather than an inborn extreme reluctance to use violence under any circumstances - are behind the trend.

I wonder what evolutionary biologists would say about the phenomenon you describe. If we are merely trained chimps how is it that we are not actively out killing each other in streets in this bad economy? My opinion is that modern conditions such as communication, infrastructure and other modern rituals contain our animal tendencies. Additionally, strong periods of enculturation contribute to reducing our animistic ways.

I don't think you can necessarily say that people have changed biochemically or even anatomically in thousands of years. It's just that we no longer rely on brute force (outside of armed conflicts) to solve our problems. We use other things. In psychology, this is called sublimation- the use of a higher level activity (pro-social) to release the tension of more fleshly forces (anti-social).

I think climbing can be seen as a sublimation of sorts. We have destructive urges that are not alleviated in other realms. This is why soloing is so taboo, I believe. That is, because it skirts the line between life and death so closely, and reminds us why we climb. It will always be the purest type of climbing.

[G-spotter]

huh? what are you saying?

 

-as humans have evolved, they have become both better at killing each other and in preparing themselves to kill each other

 

On the contrary, Steven Pinker argues eloquently in his latest NYT bestseller book that at the moment we, as a species, are the least violent we've ever been.

[JayB]

"I wonder what evolutionary biologists would say about the phenomenon you describe. If we are merely trained chimps how is it that we are not actively out killing each other in streets in this bad economy?"

 

I think that argument is that cultural forces (or cultural evolution)has been increasingly keeping our violent tendencies in check over time despite the fact that we're still saddled with a stone age brain that takes at least half of it's marching orders from the reptillian bits.

 

One of the more interesting bits of Keeley's book is his estimate that if you expanded the mortality that occurs in the intermittent skirmishes that characterizes most violent conflicts amongst primitive peoples across the entire globe the the number of KIA's in the 20th century would have been ~800 million.

[JayB]

In other words, you are denying the effectiveness of soldier desensitization training despite the overwhelming evidence.

 

no, i'm not saying that. obviously our soldiers are good at killing people and have been for a long time. the sick fucks at sand creek in 1864 oughta be a fine example of that.

 

more like saying that it's not the military so much as society in general that prepares people to kill. obviously the military builds on that burgeoning skill, and for good reasons - soldiers who won't shoot straight are just as useless as ones who can't, no?

 

Can't help but speculate that the Cultural selection process wouldn't have favored these traits at most points from pre-history onwards.

 

Whether it's a rampaging band of frustrated beta-males that that the big alpha monkeys kicked out of the neighboring stand of trees coming over to make off with your fruit and your primate lady-folk, or Ghenghis and co hell-bent on far worse...

 

In 1219 he turned his force of 700,000 west and quickly devastated Bokhara, Samarkand, Balkh, Merv (all in what is now the Soviet Union), and Neyshabur (in present-day Iran), where he slaughtered every living thing. Before his death in 1227, Chinnggis Khan, pillaging and burning cities along the way, had reached western Azarbaijan in Iran. After Chinggis's death, the area enjoyed a brief respite that ended with the arrival of Hulagu Khan (1217-65), Chinggis's grandson. In 1258 he seized Baghdad and killed the last Abbasid caliph. While in Baghdad, Hulagu made a pyramid of the skulls of Baghdad's scholars, religious leaders, and poets, and he deliberately destroyed what remained of Iraq's canal headworks. The material and artistic production of centuries was swept away. Iraq became a neglected frontier province ruled from the Mongol capital of Tabriz in Iran.

 

...meekness doesn't necessarily seem to have been a trait that would lead to inheriting the earth.

[ivan]

huh? what are you saying?

 

-as humans have evolved, they have become both better at killing each other and in preparing themselves to kill each other

 

On the contrary, Steven Pinker argues eloquently in his latest NYT bestseller book that at the moment we, as a species, are the least violent we've ever been.

i didn't say that we're killing each other more, just that, when we decide we want to kill someone, we're really, really goddamn good at doing it

 

and yes, historically, by many standards, we're living in the most peaceful era ever - not exactly a glowing recommendation for hopping in the delorean, gunning it up to 88 mph, and going backwards now is it?

[j_b]

Have there really been "countless studies" confirming that even people being shot at won't return fire?

 

Isn't it more like there's a controversial statistical claim made by a single author?

 

My bad for an unfortunate use of hyperbola, I should have looked into it further. However, few authors on the topic disagree with the gist of his findings even though they disparage his methods. There is considerable historical evidence showing that soldiers were very reluctant to kill and that modern desensitization techniques have changed that.

 

It'd be good news for humanity if his claims about the extreme reluctance of humans to kill other humans, even when someone else is actively trying to kill them happen to be true. The entire record of humanity from pre-history onwards seems to suggest that people are reluctant to kill under some cirumstances, and far less so in others.

 

don't move the goal posts. Nobody claimed that people weren't more willing to kill when under threat. People claimed that even when under threat a large number were reluctant to kill.

 

I'm skeptical of the claim that "when other people are actively trying to kill them" is one of the situations where people are generally reluctant to use lethal force.

 

There is actually good evidence that violence has actually been trending erratically downwards for at least a few centuries, and that things like rising prosperity, communication, travel, trade, the spread of liberal values, etc - rather than an inborn extreme reluctance to use violence under any circumstances - are behind the trend.

 

nice rhetoric but you fail to address the essence of my objection to your post: soldiers undergo intensive desensitization to killing, therefore comparing them to you is irrelevant (although you've certainly got the islamophobia bit down pat)

[ivan]

socialization is complex, no? while simulatenously making society in general more peaceful through the means listed above, it can also build-up the ability to be more warlike when the bugle is sounded. democracies are usually pretty peaceful, but historically they've been pretty good at kicking ass when required, yes?