Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Rudolph

Why Does It Feel Good To Kill In Video Games?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Captain Keen said:

long list of stuff

Here's the problem with this...

 

Any of these "highlights" that you mention, regardless of how drastic and cruel they were, are only a very small fraction of what has actually happened all around the globe at that time. That's not to say that only ever one war at a time occurred, mind. Even nowadays, with most conflicts happening far away from where most people live, many of which also being "ignored" or omitted by the powers that be, most people live in the relative peace of non-violent conflicts, and I have yet to hear the average citizen say that they can't wait for the next war that's gonna have them running across scorched earth... You look at just the history of monarchies across all countries, and you'll realize that, even though conflicts erupted over seemingly nothing but the bruised ego of someone who just so happened to wear a crown, that all too often, these immensely cruel rulers would also be "headcases" by any modern psychological metric...

 

And then there's also the issue with torture and rape, where, yes, men rape women in wars when insanity takes hold of them, or that rulers all across history have come up with atrocious methods of torture to extract information from prisoners, or just as a general punishment to lower the enemy's morale - but can you honestly tell me that you would enjoy the sight of someone you hate bleed out inside of an iron maiden..? I'd wager the answer to that question is a clear and resounding "no"... At least I would that it is in the interest of your personal mental health...

 

Anyway, when acts of violence and atrocity ever were "fashionable" during any given era, most of the time there wasn't an "average human" being responsible for them, but either an outspoken nutcase, or an overall normal person, who has been driven beyond the limits of what the human psyche is able to cope with in a healthy manner...

 

There is another problem with how that site you provided presents its data:

ourworldindata_percentage-of-years-in-wh

The issue here, the graph that most people will think also matters the most does very little in the way of clarification with regards to what even constitutes "a great power", or how many great powers were involved at any given time - not just hotspots... Which is to say, if the diagram there makes it a point to emphasize situations when several "great powers" were involved in a conflict, and denotes those at the bottom of the graph, but nothing other than that, then there is more than enough reason to assume that most of the time, even across 1500 - 1800, only a few of the great powers that existed have actually been involved in warfare against one another...

 

The next issue I have with this general approach of yours, which, for me, boils down to how a history that is permeated by violent conflicts that happened somewhere on this planet, is that you then go out of your way to make it a point for how bloodthirsty humans supposedly are, while most conflicts, in particular the ones the graph above highlights at the bottom, have been fought for political or economical gain - not for the sport of it, and not because it was so much fun... Moreover, the vast majority of wars ever fought, were declared by someone who was willing to send others to do the killing for them. You would never see someone like Stalin, Mussolini, or Hitler at a battlefront if there was any real danger that they might get their hands dirty or their heads ventilated. The crux at the bottom line is that your argument confuses the capacity for violence with a desire for violence...

 

Another aspect that you don't see on a graph like that, is that the soldiers, knights, etc, who go to the front lines, did it primarily because they think (or are made to think) that the cause they are fighting for is just, or because of the promise of monetary, or societal/political gain (the latter especially true for knights). Very few soldiers, in particular nowadays, are even allowed to serve if, at any point during a rudimentary check up on their mental health, anybody gets the impression that they're psychopaths who cannot be reigned in. And practically no soldier who has ever been in a serious war has ever said that it was so much fun, they just can't wait for the next opportunity to shoot someone in the face. Most soldiers, after having been in a war, are broken and in need of more professional psychiatric attention and/or counselling than any given army's personnel is able to cover, including that of the United States of America, who likes to pride itself publicly with how much they care for their veterans while they send the poor fucks they burn up in a war for profit to EMDR sessions in hopes of letting pseudo-science do the job they couldn't be bothered to make sure they could cover properly in the first place...

 

Then there is a problem with the lethality of wars, which, overall seems to be in decline in the grand scheme of things. It's questionable to point at a war fought centuries ago, to then make the argument that, based on how many died, people are/were bloodthirsty savages, while ignoring the fact that a great many of the lives we would lose to wars these days are being saved due to advances in the medical field. In other words, even a deep flesh-wound could turn out lethal in medieval times, while nowadays people get patched up and deployed again in no time whatsoever. So the per-capita mortality rate of a war that happened centuries ago is not necessarily representative of how bloodthirsty people were on the battlefield, doubly so when you consider that the means of war have changed drastically since then. For instance, the civil war between England the soon-to-be Unites States that was fought with muskets which, if they were on target, tore out so much tissue that a musket ball could rip limbs off someone's body. Compare that to modern rifles and ammunition. Most of what's used in wars nowadays is only ever 100% lethal if the heart or the head are being penetrated - which, admittedly, happens from time to time. Regardless, we haven't become better at living peacefully side by side necessarily, but we for damn sure have become better at "cultivating" a less gruesome type of warfare - because we don't like killing or being killed, let alone up close and personal. The Geneva Convention exists for that reason, among others. Adding to that, there is also the point that causing injuries in wars is often preferred over outright killing someone, because an injury takes an enemy out of the equation while it also ties up resources - which means not killing is often the "better" course of action on a battlefield, both from a strategic and psychological point of view. Then, we look at the most recent developments in the form of combat drones, which further "depersonalizes" the act of killing, because nobody actually likes doing it.

 

Long story short, history of mankind and the psychology of the individual that people think it reflects are not as congruent as it looks on the surface...

Edited by Nine Inch Heels

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GarrettChan said:

Well, this is true. To expand on this, I was born in the 80s, and around the 90s, basically video games are quite demonized by a lot of people, especially parents saying addicting to video games hurts your life. Though it's kinda funny that basically right now, a big group of people, despite being parents themselves, are addicted to video games to some extent depending on how you define "addicted", heh.

 

I believe this violence thing was originated in the 90s, which was the era where everybody was wary about this new thing.

To be fair, the concerns parents and politicians had revolving around video games back in the 1980s, as far as I can tell, were more based around video games being addicting in general, with people becoming worried it'll become the new gambling.

Share this post


Link to post

I like in blade of agony shovel you alert enimes by hitting the wall with it and take them out with it you feel like a cereal killer its so cool with level 3 I think when its night time

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Anyway, when acts of violence and atrocity ever were "fashionable" during any given era, most of the time there wasn't an "average human" being responsible for them, but either an outspoken nutcase, or an overall normal person, who has been driven beyond the limits of what the human psyche is able to cope with in a healthy manner...

 

I sadly could not disagree more. Many genocides have been committed by "average humans". That's what is scary. You have these mad leaders take over, like Hitler as an obvious example, and they convince seemingly normal people to do horrific things. It's the "banality of evil".

 

1 hour ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

So the per-capita mortality rate of a war that happened centuries ago is not necessarily representative of how bloodthirsty people were on the battlefield, doubly so when you consider that the means of war have changed drastically since then.

 

Again, I disagree. It's not just about raw numbers. The brutality of ancient war has been well documented, over the centuries. Millions died in direct battle.

 

War is very common throughout our history. I didn't even realize this was a debate that could be had, I thought this was widely acknowledged. I think it's our greatest sin as a species, the fact that somewhere almost always we are killing each other or killing civilians. Even WW2, the vast majority of casualties weren't soldiers, they were civilians.

 

I realize I'm legitimately bothered by what you're saying, and I think it's because this same logic has been used to downplay actual crimes and make survivors feel like they're lying or making it up. These arguments have been used to downplay the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide, for example. "No way 6 million Jews were killed, that's an exaggeration", etc. etc.

 

1 hour ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

And practically no soldier who has ever been in a serious war has ever said that it was so much fun, they just can't wait for the next opportunity to shoot someone in the face.

 

Yes they have. Many times. Do you have any family in the military? I can think of three people off the top of my head who have bragged about killing people in the Middle East. One guy admitted he joined the army "just because I wanted to shoot people." That's just from my own personal experience.

 

There are many examples of warriors in the past talking about how much pleasure it brought them to kill on the battlefield. People like Vlad the Impaler would literally kill their own men if they didn't seem to be enjoying the death and destruction enough. These are documented, unless you assume all historical documents are lies. Which is a whhhooollleeee different debate.

 

Here's an example of the Ustase, and they are far from alone in history for this kind of barbarity...

 

https://allthatsinteresting.com/ustase

 

From the article:

 

“Serbian and Jewish men, women and children were literally hacked to death,” historian Jonathan Steinberg wrote. “Whole villages were razed to the ground…There is in the Italian Foreign Ministry archive a collection of photographs of the butcher knives, hooks, and axes used to chop up Serbian victims. There are photographs of Serb women with breasts hacked off by pocket knives, men with eyes gouged out, emasculated, and mutilated.”

 

“The Ustaše committed their deeds in a bestial manner not only against males of conscript age, but especially against helpless old people, women, and children. The number of the Orthodox that the Croats have massacred and sadistically tortured to death is about three hundred thousand.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Captain Keen said:

-snip-

claiming that nih is using the same logic as holocaust deniers, wow. godwin's law strikes yet again.

 

while there's a LOT to unpack in both your posts, i currently don't have the attention span to go and pick through all of it, so fuck it. what i will say, however, is that you pretty much ignored entire parts of my posts that would've acted as a decent counterargument to the stuff that you brought up - you're just cherry picking specific quotes and ignoring pretty much everything around them so you still have an argument, or in the case of what i said about tribal warfare, completely misinterpreting them (none of the things you listed are tribal warfare, like come on...)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Captain Keen said:

I sadly could not disagree more. Many genocides have been committed by "average humans". That's what is scary. You have these mad leaders take over, like Hitler as an obvious example, and they convince seemingly normal people to do horrific things. It's the "banality of evil".

Yes, that's the point... You have people like Hitler, who is by all accounts an utter headcase, a xenophobe, germophobe, and delusional to boot, in a position of power, where he gets to make the calls your average joe needs to follow, else they be branded disloyal, imprisoned, or shot in the head on the spot... Then, you throw people like that into a situation where they're bound to go "full tilt", and suddenly your average joe - who would (under normal circumstances) never even consider putting a bullet through anybody's head - goes completely off the rails, due to how extreme the situation he finds himself in is... That is the capacity for violence I was talking about. Whether or not you know somebody who was deranged enough to think that the act of killing someone is pleasurable or not is, by and large, irrelevant, since the supposed evidence you think you have provided is entirely anecdotal. Meanwhile, I'm a psychologist by trade, and have had plenty of clients who served in the army before pursuing a career on the free market, not only because it pays better, but also they hated literally every single second on the battlefields they've been to (with PTSD to hell and back, which sometimes was the least of their worries) - never mind that many of these clients were palmed off to me by a psychotherapist I've had reasonably well-established business ties with.

 

So yes, most everybody who had the misfortune of living in the Third Reich may have turned out a Nazi (although what's been a mask shown in public and what's been going on behind closed doors is a different matter when it comes to dictatorships like that), but the only reason things ever went down the shitter so hard is because a select few people, not your average joe, wound up with more power than any reasonable human being could ever want them to obtain, and then created an atmosphere that resulted in very dangerous dynamics among people... Does this mean that everybody who ever applauded a speech given by Hitler or Goebbels is a bloodthirsty savage while so many of them wouldn't even go near a front line..? I don't think so... When you have no choice but to sing along in the interest of your self-preservation, you fucking sing along whether you like it or not - you do that for long enough, and you start believing the shit that's being preached. That's how this works - it's a select few people channelling the capacity of the individual towards whichever goal they deem worth going after. If anything, this says more about how easily manipulated people can be, and less about how inherently brutal and cruel everybody's daily urges are...

 

1 hour ago, Captain Keen said:

War is very common throughout our history. I didn't even realize this was a debate that could be had, I thought this was widely acknowledged. I think it's our greatest sin as a species, the fact that somewhere almost always we are killing each other or killing civilians. Even WW2, the vast majority of casualties weren't soldiers, they were civilians.

Now you're the one going off the rails... I've never said that war was uncommon, I've argued that war was not waged to quench the blood thirst of an inherently violent population, and I've furthermore argued that those who instigate wars are not representative of how most people feel about killing someone - that's a way different thing to talk about. Additionally, I have also argued that a history that is permeated by conflicts all around the world is not reflective, let alone indicative of a desire to kill that you want to make believe all humans have, which would also mean that every living and breathing human ever to walk the surface of this rock would constantly need to suppress their urge to cave someone else's head in with the next best blunt object they can get their hands on. Again, this is not how humans tick...

 

1 hour ago, Captain Keen said:

I realize I'm legitimately bothered by what you're saying, and I think it's because this same logic has been used to downplay actual crimes and make survivors feel like they're lying or making it up. These arguments have been used to downplay the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide, for example. "No way 6 million Jews were killed, that's an exaggeration", etc. etc.

Then allow me to congratulate you for trying to beat up a straw man. And I'll also take the fact that I'm being tossed in the same category as a holocaust denier as an insult that's gonna put you very high on the list of people I'll most likely ignore for an indefinite amount of time going forward.

 

1 hour ago, Captain Keen said:

Yes they have. Many times. Do you have any family in the military? I can think of three people off the top of my head who have bragged about killing people in the Middle East. One guy admitted he joined the army "just because I wanted to shoot people." That's just from my own personal experience.

Yes, just your own experience, as in: Anecdotal, therefore irrelevant.

 

1 hour ago, Captain Keen said:

There are many examples of warriors in the past talking about how much pleasure it brought them to kill on the battlefield. People like Vlad the Impaler would literally kill their own men if they didn't seem to be enjoying the death and destruction enough. These are documented, unless you assume all historical documents are lies. Which is a whhhooollleeee different debate.

Okay, thank you for making my case for me... Not only was he considered extraordinarily cruel even by medieval standards, you also mention right there that he had to pressure his men into being more brutal, ruthless and cruel as they actually were... Which should immediately tell you that my assertion that a few blood thirsty savages, some of whom being in a position of power, are not to be confused with how most people think, act, and feel about literally anything...

 

I really don't care how "many" examples of warriors you think may exist, unless there is a damn good reason to assume that these psychopaths were the majority - and I know what you're going to tell me now, which is gonna be the thousands upon thousands of rapes that committed in a war at some point, and I'll point right back to "people having to cope with more than their psyche can handle in a healthy manner". Also rape is often a manifestation of hatred, and no human being considered healthy and stable by anyone these days would actually find any pleasure in the act (in fact, most people prefer having sex when the desire to engage is mutual in nature ohhhhhhh)

 

Adding to the psychopath point a little more, the percentage of psychopaths among today's population is estimated to be around the 1% margin... One. Percent. So even if those plentiful reports of oh-so-proud warriors exist, what was their percentage of the population back then to begin with? You think anybody is gonna be impressed when you fling numbers around that have been sampled solely from a group comprised only of people willing (or pressured) enough to risk life and limb for rancid food and a shoddy roof over their heads? Sorry, that's not how science works. All I see there is sample bias - which you happen to use to make a case that stood on shaky grounds ever since this thread was a mere 2 pages in length.

 

Anyway... Unless you manage to bring up anything that isn't "carefully curated evidence" I'm done here. As far as I'm concerned that example you brought up of Vlad The Impaler tells me more than clearly that you don't even understand the implications of your own arguments... Not worth my time, especially not after such a straw man. I'm no stranger to playing rough, but I know something is beneath me when I see it...

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Anyway... Unless you manage to bring up anything that isn't "carefully curated evidence" I'm done here. As far as I'm concerned that example you brought up of Vlad The Impaler tells me more than clearly that you don't even understand the implications of your own arguments... Not worth my time, especially not after such a straw man. I'm no stranger to playing rough, but I know something is beneath me when I see it...

 

Er... what?

 

Wait... have you been kidding this entire time? You can't type up a book and then say I'M DONE WITH YOU. That's just juvenile silliness.

 

Anyway, humans are violent, that's recorded history, I didn't even know anyone disputed this fact. Many brilliant minds throughout history have tried to figure out ways to stop wars, and reduce human violence. I honestly don't think it's up for debate that we are the most violent animal to have ever lived on planet Earth, unless you're talking about actual viruses or something along those lines.

 

Not only are wars very frequent and common throughout human history, but so are genocides. Often it is civilians who suffer the most in wars, too, and not soldiers or "enemy combatants".

 

Your response of putting me down and making this personal says a whollleeee lot more about you than it does me. Some of the arguments you're making are also similar to Holocaust denial arguments, meant to downplay the suffering of very real people. I thought we were discussing in good faith, but I guess not, so I guess I have nothing else to add. Your response says all it needs to say.

 

I'll just leave this quote here, from my favorite novel, spoken by a truly evil character who is nonetheless correct (at least so far):

 

“It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.”

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, roadworx said:

you're just cherry picking specific quotes and ignoring pretty much everything around them so you still have an argument, or in the case of what i said about tribal warfare, completely misinterpreting them (none of the things you listed are tribal warfare, like come on...)

 

What's tribal warfare have to do with anything? War is war. Humans are tribal, so in that case, all wars are tribal?

 

Europe hasn't existed as a bunch of tribes in the traditional sense for thousands of years. So many historical battles were nation states against other nation states.

 

Oh, there have also been plenty of societies built around war, where war was seen as a sport of sorts. The Spartans are probably the most famous example of this. The Aztecs were pretty similar. Completely separate societies divided by oceans and centuries, too.

 

Even in the modern day, both the United States and China have massive industries built around war. Killing people is unfortunately a good way to make money.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Captain Keen said:

Your response of putting me down and making this personal says a whollleeee lot more about you than it does me. Some of the arguments you're making are also similar to Holocaust denial arguments, meant to downplay the suffering of very real people. I thought we were discussing in good faith, but I guess not, so I guess I have nothing else to add. Your response says all it needs to say.

Ah yes, standard troll protocol:

 

First you fling shit my way, then you act butt hurt when you get what you bargained for, then yet another straw man to boot, because you know your argument sucks ass, then claiming I'm the one not discussing things in good faith... It's nice when things are that obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Captain Keen said:

What's tribal warfare have to do with anything? War is war. Humans are tribal, so in that case, all wars are tribal?

...no. you literally have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about; differentiating between bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states is basic anthropological theory. if you wanna know why nih is fed up with you, it's because of this: you're talking about something that you have a bare-bones understanding of while acting like your wildly misinformed conclusion is the authoritative one. if you don't even know the difference between traditional tribal warfare and modern-day warfare between states, then why are you acting as if you know what you're talking about when it comes to human conflict?

 

i'm not even gonna bother with the rest of your post, because i'm not even sure you know what we're trying to argue.

Share this post


Link to post

I have been thinking about this thread a bit and my opinion is the reason it feels good or not so good to kill in games is dependent on the individual and their way of dealing with a violent game.

 

I love killing Mr. Burke in Fallout 3 because he would kill Sheriff Lucas Simms if you choose to not side with him and report him. I don't enjoy nuking Megaton, but like the thrill of disarming the bomb. With that said, there are plenty of people who would have no issue siding with Mr. Burke and wiping out Megaton without mercy, yet it is fun either way in the long run. If you're trying to be a hero you will make decisions differently than you would if you want your character to be more of a villain.

 

Another comparison I'd like to mention is in Duke Nukem 3D with the pod women. I have seen so many different opinions on this spanning from people that think they should be removed entirely, people who think you should spare them/rescue them/prevent their death, to people who think the most moral thing to do in the situation is to simply put them out of their misery by granting them their wish, "kill me!". To me, there's nothing fun about killing these women, but I do find it interesting that there's more than one way of looking at it in terms of morality.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TelicAx7 said:

Another comparison I'd like to mention is in Duke Nukem 3D with the pod women. I have seen so many different opinions on this spanning from people that think they should be removed entirely, people who think you should spare them/rescue them/prevent their death, to people who think the most moral thing to do in the situation is to simply put them out of their misery by granting them their wish, "kill me!". To me, there's nothing fun about killing these women, but I do find it interesting that there's more than one way of looking at it in terms of morality.

I must admit, while I take issue with that aspect of the game morally speaking, I always end up shooting them because they spawn additional enemies. If that was 3D Realms' way to punish the players there, then they did not think it through! I guess Duke Nukem 64 did the right thing by giving you the ability to rescue them.

Share this post


Link to post

My theory is that shooting and killing in video games is an effective way to fulfil my primitive hunting instincts (a biological legacy of the old days when humans regularly went out hunting), while at the same time knowing that no matter how many demons I kill, I won't be hurting anyone in real life.

Share this post


Link to post

It's because we are the most violent, bloodhungry apes on the planet. Chimpanzees can be brutally violent, sure, but their violence is mostly secluded to intrasexual combat on a level that isn't particularly as destructive as we are. Not to mention that their hunting efforts are usually against very small monkeys. With us? We literally, for sport, go after bears and wolves and all that jazz.

It is within our blood to engage in violence. Take that as you will. Considering the fact our streets aren't covered in blood, it's quite clear we have the capability to put the fists down and not butcher eachother for sport to accomplish anything else.

 

And if it matters, this is coming from someone who nearly got murdered by a group for the fun of it.

Share this post


Link to post

Catharsis, I imagine. Freedom, control, revenge. Helps blow off steam and release aggression. 

 

But then you don't need to be angry to like an FPS. Borderlands is fun because of how outrageously silly and comical it is.

and Call of Duty is fun because...no scratch that, Call of Duty is never fun.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Captain Keen said:

Anyway, humans are violent, that's recorded history, I didn't even know anyone disputed this fact.


Yes, but my only point is that people don’t like to KILL other people, even in wars. The vast majority of wars do not end with one side committing complete genocide on the other side. It’s almost always some form of subjugation or assimilation.

 

This is why I say humans don’t like to kill because if we did, our wars would end with genocide more often than political / social domination. The purpose of the violence is to scare the other person into doing what you want.

Edited by RDETalus

Share this post


Link to post

Because we're psychopathic evil serial killing mass murderers or something idk go ask Tipper Gore about it.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, RDETalus said:

Yes, but my only point is that people don’t like to KILL other people, even in wars. The vast majority of wars do not end with one side committing complete genocide on the other side. It’s almost always some form of subjugation or assimilation.

 

This is why I say humans don’t like to kill because if we did, our wars would end with genocide more often than political / social domination

 

 

The fundamental problem with going off of historical records or even archaeology is that you invariably come to realize that lethal conflict has happened pretty much everywhere humans ever settled down. But attempting to simplify that fact such that the claim ends up becoming that humans these days, in general, enjoy the process of killing is a reach, which is what I've been arguing thus far, and it's gotten me in the same basket as holocaust deniers, so be careful how much time you waste with this guy...

 

Anyway... If there's anything that stands out about humans, in plain numbers, it is that we're the one mammal on the planet that shows the highest propensity to kill its own kind, in fact, by a significant chunk - about 6 to 7 times more likely than your average mammal (2.3% of all human deaths at the hands of another human, roughly). The question then is what this means... Your average and frustrated GenXer will have you believe that's evidence enough to assert that we just fucking love killing each other, but any psychologist worth their salt will tell you that this propensity, that seems so out of line, is the result of 2 main factors: Territoriality and living in social groups... (note the absence of the words blood and thirst)

 

The more pronounced these 2 factors are, the higher the chance of violent conflicts. Humans are, despite what many disgruntled individuals may have you believe, one of the most social species on this planet, and we're also one of the most territorial ones. It's because of those factors that our ancestors from way back when were violent savages, and both the degree of socialization as well as the territoriality are in us... No two ways about it...

 

But the question this thread is revolving around is not if humans have the capacity to kill, or if people ever killed someone else (neither is being put into question)... The question is if humans, by nature, enjoy killing (their own kind), to which most psychologists will respond that people who enjoy killing fall into the psychopath/sociopath categories. Psychopaths are roughly 1% of the world's population, sociopaths are multiple times more common - at 4 to 5 ish %, last I checked. These are the kinds of people who will tell you to your face that they're looking forward to killing someone, or at least they'll tell you that they're not bothered by it. If there's anything that should be disturbing at the bottom line, it would be that one out of 20 people is either a psychopath or a sociopath, and it should come as no surprise that, in particular in medieval times, it was that shade of person who was also likely to join an army (and that's also true these days, efforts against that vary in how successful they are). That's why I've pointed towards the sample-bias earlier.

 

One thing that can be said is that many people enjoy violence when it's (promised to be) non-lethal - or at least when it doesn't mean they might get killed (but perhaps someone else). Kids do their rough and tumble play. People will tell you about some MMA fight they watched that was spectacular for some reason, and they'll consider that experience to be enjoyable, look no further than ancient rome, and you get the gist of it... In fact, look a bit closer, and you'll realize that the vast, vast majority of gladiators who died in the colosseum were forced to fight for their life, and many of them pissed themselves on their way into the arena - they did not like that at all, and if given a choice, nearly all of them would have withdrawn...

 

Anyway, a lot of effort to basically explain why people don't murder for fun as a general rule... Be it fights among ancient tribes, or succession wars, most of the time these occurred because of the 2 factors I mentioned earlier: Territoriality paired with how social our species as a whole is...

Edited by Nine Inch Heels

Share this post


Link to post

I don't respond to personal attacks. Just not worth the time or effort. Sorry. If you want to feel that you are right and happy and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and dumb... cool. Do it.

 

The points I'm making are simple:

 

1) We are a violent species. More so than any other animal species on the planet. No other animals kill each other at the rate we do, with the ferocity that we do.

 

2) We fight too many wars, and most of our history has been dominated by war. The country I live in right now has been around for almost 250 years, and has been at war with another nation for over 220 of those years. (That's about 93-94% of the time.)

 

3) Some people do enjoy murder as an act of sport, or for fun... and these people aren't that rare. Many of these people are drawn to warfare, or to conflict. Most wars throughout history have been fought face-to-face with blunt instruments and hand-to-hand combat.

 

4) If we want to have a bright future, we need to get past these original sins of war and violence and tribalism and become something better than that, where these terrible actions are rare rather than common place.

 

Just look at how combative this discussion thread got, and so fast. That's human nature. Those same emotions fueling your rage now, so that you type books and books of pages, and engage in personal attacks... that's the same emotions that fuel conflicts and disputes all around the world since the very beginning of time. It is human nature to seek combat with each other. I wouldn't even say all conflict is bad, such as games or good debates, but mass killing people is, in fact, always bad. I can't believe there's an argument about that, but then again it is 2022 and people think vaccines are more dangerous than a virus.

 

We are simply too violent as a species. On the other hand, SIMULATED VIOLENCE, such as the Doom games, is not the same thing as real violence. The biggest difference? Consequences. Just because you enjoy a violent game doesn't make you a violent person, or someone without morals.

 

Also... I live in a country where Jewish temples are being shot up by neo nazis, and where Jews are attacked on the streets for their religion. The nazis aren't gone. They're still around, and they are gaining power again. The Capitol building of my country was attacked last year by militants and white supremacists. Some of them wore shirts saying "6 MILLION WASN'T ENOUGH", in reference to killing more Jews. Fellow citizens have marched in my streets yelling "JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US." This isn't some bygone relic of the past. Even Mike Godwin himself said: "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you."

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

So what does just about any of this argument have to do with why it feels good to kill in video games? I don’t think the question was if people enjoy to kill each other in wars and past events of real world violence. This is madness. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Captain Keen said:

I sadly could not disagree more. Many genocides have been committed by "average humans". That's what is scary. You have these mad leaders take over, like Hitler as an obvious example, and they convince seemingly normal people to do horrific things. It's the "banality of evil". 

yes because we all know hitler was a normal person not like his upbringing had anything weird nor was there anything wrong with his head from those experiences all that happened was he got voted in office and killed jews and there was no previous hate twords them its all just a black and white world we can plainly see everything

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, gwain said:

yes because we all know hitler was a normal person not like his upbringing had anything weird nor was there anything wrong with his head from those experiences all that happened was he got voted in office and killed jews and there was no previous hate twords them its all just a black and white world we can plainly see everything

 

What?

 

Think about the point you're trying to make.

 

There have been plenty of bad, violent people throughout history. And they never act alone, they always have either armies or supporters to act for them. That's also true of good things, and good movements. The way good leaders and bad leaders operate and organize is often very similar, but the message and the tone is very different. Hitler isn't actually that unique in history, there have been many others like him, he just did his crimes on a more industrial scale, and it lead to a war that had incredible implications for world history. But maniacs who lead nations or groups of people against other groups of people are nothing new. Genocide (as an act) isn't a 20th century invention. It's been around since the beginnings of human civilization.

 

Speaking of which, as far as I can determine, some people have said in this thread that violent actions in the past are "okay" because the people doing them feel bad about it. So it's okay. They didn't "enjoy" it. So whatever violence they inflicted on others is understandable. I cannot wrap my head around that logic. It's also not historically accurate, as many famous nations, cultures, and even historical figures indulged in violence and wrote of how much they enjoyed it or enjoyed the rush of battle (they used different terminology, of course). If that's not what the users on this thread meant, great, I'm happy to hear that, but the way they explained themselves was bizarre and/or unclear.

 

29 minutes ago, TelicAx7 said:

So what does just about any of this argument have to do with why it feels good to kill in video games? I don’t think the question was if people enjoy to kill each other in wars and past events of real world violence. This is madness. 

 

I mean, it's kind of natural that a discussion about simulated violence would also turn into one about real violence. Politicians have tried to link the two many times, and even write laws banning games based on this premise that virtual violence leads to real violence. Personally I completely disagree. Simulated violence, especially in a surreal and OTT game like DOOM, is nothing like real violence. They are completely separate. Humans have been killing each other in incredibly violent ways for thousands of years, videogames have barely existed for half a century. Just because it's fun to kill or battle virtual demons doesn't mean you think it's fun to kill real, living things. I'm pretty sure most people here would agree with that sentiment (I think?).

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Captain Keen said:

There have been plenty of bad, violent people throughout history. And they never act alone, they always have either armies or supporters to act for them. That's also true of good things, and good movements. The way good leaders and bad leaders operate and organize is often very similar, but the message and the tone is very different.

Yes, which means precisely what I said already. Your argument that "normal people" commit atrocities, therefore committing atrocities is normal human nature, is moot. Because you say there, quite clearly, that the leadership is what makes the big difference.... And that's because the leadership determines the "climate" in any given country, and totalitarian leaderships do way, way more than just that.

 

Hitler was a totalitarian, who surrounded himself with like-minded and influential individuals, and it's that small group of people that ended up being responsible for what happened during WWII. Yes, your average joe is the one who goes to war and does the killing, but it's the leadership that manipulates, misguides, and indoctrinates. Any large scale conflict ever over the last couple centuries started only because a select few people - not representative of the norm - had to throw their tantrums over banalities such as monetary gain, or fear of the unknown - and all that not in the interest - but at the expense of the common folk, who, according to your line of arguing were just as deranged and bloodthirsty as the psychotic despots they had the misfortune to be living under...

 

That's what we're disagreeing on, your assertion that any atrocity like mass-rapes during wars indicate that a normal person, under normal circumstances would act exactly the same is false. Not just according to me, but according to psychologists at large.

 

51 minutes ago, Captain Keen said:

Speaking of which, as far as I can determine, some people have said in this thread that violent actions in the past are "okay" because the people doing them feel bad about it. So it's okay. They didn't "enjoy" it. So whatever violence they inflicted on others is understandable. I cannot wrap my head around that logic.

Nor can I wrap my head around that logic, especially because nobody here has ever said that murdering someone else is "okay" if you feel bad enough after the fact... I challenge you to find me one post, just one single post, where anybody said something that would just vaguely resemble the next straw man you're trying to beat up right there...

 

So let me count real quick: Your first straw man was throwing me in with the holocaust deniers, then you accused me of downplaying the suffering of civilians (which, by the way, I haven't even spoken of once, never mind denied), and with this most recent straw man right here you're at 3 already... Which makes you a less than ideal to person to preach love, peace, and harmony, to say the very least.

 

The argument that has been made - just in case you're as lazy and lacking in attention span as you seem to be - is that the fact that humans have killed each other countless times is not indicative of any presence of "pleasure" that is being derived from the act.

-To which your response was that plenty of warriors over the course of history have espoused that they loved it.

-To which my response was that those types of people - psychopaths and to an extent sociopaths - are, statistically, not the norm. Psychopaths are 1% of the global population, give or take. Sociopaths are about 4-5% of the global population. Those aren't numbers I made up for fun, that's what scientists have to say on the matter after conducting studies in order to produce statistics with the least possible degree of sample-bias.

-You then went on to say that not Hitler himself shot and raped people on the battlefield.

-To which my response was that, because of how extreme a battlefield is, humans crack and lose their sense of what's right or wrong in all sorts of ways, rape being one of the many manifestations that can occur when all hell breaks loose between the ears of an otherwise psychologically healthy person... That's no excuse for rape, and much less anything that would even faintly imply that I would condone it, all it means is that humans tend to act in extreme ways when they're being put in extreme situations (by extreme people), because their brain tries to find an outlet, just any outlet possible, to release the tension...

 

51 minutes ago, Captain Keen said:

It's also not historically accurate, as many famous nations, cultures, and even historical figures indulged in violence and wrote of how much they enjoyed it or enjoyed the rush of battle (they used different terminology, of course). If that's not what the users on this thread meant, great, I'm happy to hear that, but the way they explained themselves was bizarre and/or unclear.

Then I suggest that next time you have problems following what's being discussed you ask for clarification instead of throwing me in the same basket as a holocaust denier... Would have spared a lot of pushback that you were absolutely deserving of, may I add...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Captain Keen said:

 

What?

 

Think about the point you're trying to make.

 

There have been plenty of bad, violent people throughout history. And they never act alone, they always have either armies or supporters to act for them. That's also true of good things, and good movements. The way good leaders and bad leaders operate and organize is often very similar, but the message and the tone is very different. Hitler isn't actually that unique in history, there have been many others like him, he just did his crimes on a more industrial scale, and it lead to a war that had incredible implications for world history. But maniacs who lead nations or groups of people against other groups of people are nothing new. Genocide (as an act) isn't a 20th century invention. It's been around since the beginnings of human civilization.

mon dejiur its a redditter with an opinion he regurgitated well I read your blurb there

and you make no sense at all im trying to say is that hitler wasn't your average joe what does your contrived response have to do with literally anything with that

 

(also your good and bad movement is objectively stupid if someone has a militia of violent people who will take action its objectively bad no matter what it is for)

 

its obvious if you have half a brain genocide isnt new

 

what im saying normal people don't just "snap" for no reason to commit some terrible act or acts just cause snap

however built up anger and an upbringing/mental state (such as Adolf Hitler's) makes someone do that

Share this post


Link to post

just realized something

 

why are we being jackasses arguing over the stupidist crap on this bait thread? we could be making art or midis or anything else really do yourself a favor and get off this thread/doomworld for a good moment and do something weather it be hanging out with freinds or installing your first distro of linux or just do something better ya bunch of want to be angry idiots

Share this post


Link to post

The same Reason why it feels good to win at a Football Game, Chess or anything else.

You acomplished something and overcome a Problem.

Success causes your Brain to spread Hormones that makes you feel good.

 

Most Humans can distinguish between Reality and killing there and a Game where nobody gets hurt.

So there is no bad feeling about.

 

I would say that the absolutly Mayority of Players of Doom, Mortal Kombat, God of War and so on are peaceful and pacifistic and never really hurt a Person in there Life for real.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Azuris said:

The same Reason why it feels good to win at a Football Game, Chess or anything else.

You acomplished something and overcome a Problem.

Success causes your Brain to spread Hormones that makes you feel good.

I am not so sure about that. There are games where I do not feel such sensation when I kill an enemy.

 

For example, killing a military grunt in Half-Life does not fill me with the same satisfaction than killing an Imp in Doom. It is not like I feel bad for the former, since the game does a pretty good job at establishing that the HECU are assholes. I do not know if it is the underwhelming feeling of the Half-Life arsenal or the facts that the HECU do not seem to have a pain state and they just fall to the ground when dying, but it is just not the same thing.

 

And again, there is the case of Chex Quest, which is basically a reskin of Doom, yet zorching enemies away do not feel as satisfying as blasting them with a shotgun. Heck, even in Doom, I find the Shotgun/Supershotgun and the Chaingun more satisfying to use than the Plasma Rifle, even though enemies die the same way. I cannot really explain it.

 

4 hours ago, gwain said:

why are we being jackasses arguing over the stupidist crap on this bait thread?

While I agree that the genocide tangent is weird, I assure you I started this thread out of genuine curiosity and I did not mean to bait anyone.

Share this post


Link to post

I skimmed the rest of this thread, but I've been on an armchair existentialist kick lately, especially this last year (some off-site posts on doopleborps dot net for example)


I feel like Heels is arguing from her own nature and sensibilities in particular, but that's part of the self-looping irony towards its truth in the first place.  The shilling for cooperation over murder - is itself part of the same package of whether or not cooperation is a better virtue than murder in the first place :P.  It is also perhaps an echo from the primordial soup that formed Heels herself in the first place (unless she's just an anomaly), and a packet of inertia from the very same evolutionary advantages that brought her here in the first place.  (assuming certain evolutionary principals)


I see the Keen side and the Heels side as two layers of the same deep stack.  Maybe violence has virtue if that's all you have, but if there's a path for cooperation instead... maybe that's just better.  (I don't know if a 'cart-before-horse' evolutionary analogy is due here or fits)


As far as existentialism goes, this thread seems to focus mostly on kinetic boundaries in particular:

  • In the real world at any given time, another animal; civilian; crusade; artillery strike; or nuclear armageddon (an escalating span) - can all randomly just kinda come out of no-where and kill you (so it's interesting to wrestle with them virtually i guess).
  • And as far as general "non-adversarial" environmental stuff goes.  Falling down a ravine shatters you; but walking down the ravine keeps you in tact.  Ever get that counter-intuitive urge to jump off a cliff when you're nearby one?  It's almost like you're simulating it in your mind... like a videogame :^P

For fun I'm gonna go beyond the scope of this thread and generalize a bit though:  There are other existential boundaries besides the kinetic ones that violence, war, etc play on.


I've been on the OCD/Tourrettes train my whole life, and by train I mean rollercoaster seat you're strapped down and fastened into.  So my understanding of free-will (and personal boundaries, and trying to hold on to ones purity in general) is kinda warped.  Your "conscious" ego gets carted around while your body (... and tbh sometimes just your mind...) do things that you don't necessarily "want" to do in the first place, like scratch wounds into your face when a news anchor looks at you through the TV.  The points in this thread mentioning "playing out scenarios in a simulation" vs reality are intersting...  In a videogame you can drive off a cliff for the luls, etc, to act out a scenario.  Funny enough, my concious ego is forced into situation where it "acts" out something it doesn't want to do (or do I want to?~~~ that's another funny layer of questions that I try not to let spiral out of control).  It's sort-of like shadowboxing with the abyss, and... It all sorta turns into one, deep, eldritch CNC kink.  Maybe I'm getting too personal here.

 

On 1/20/2022 at 5:45 PM, Nine Inch Heels said:

That said, if you tried to kill me, or a family member, you can bet any sum of money you want that I'll do what I can to erase you from existence.

I have a weird compulsion to quote you here too, lol.  Hmm, likewise, I wonder about what I'd do if I saw the boundaries of other people violated that I respected (both people, as well as the boundaries themselves) - I wonder what I'd do if I saw someone slip an LCD tablet into someone's drink at a party (which is something I've heard happen to another in person before; and I didn't hear it through the depraved, corrupt Rorschach filter of the internet, one that apparently makes us think any adversary we encounter is a dehumanized Nazi... or think blockchain is the new devil while hedgefunds magically stop existsing... me smashes head onto desk).  Permanent ego rape is something I tend to not like, even someone rationalizes it as "JuSt a pRAnk, BrO!".  For all I know, I'd snap in this situation, and then the police would have to pry my thumbs out of that person's eyesockets.  Though I wonder if the punishment should fit the crime (maybe an eye for an ego-rape should instead be 'an ego-rape for an ego-rape'.  or maybe cut the cycle of drama and instead use some sort of simulated scare tactic against future generations of your adversary, sort of like a videogame - but only if someone in their ranks has enough capacity of self-awareness for it... otherwise I guess we fallback on actual kinetic violence).  


At the end of the day too, life is literally a clash of conflicting existential boundaries (not just kinetic), and it would be presumptious of me to completely miscredit the boundaries of others just because there are ones that 'I' care more about personally...


This next part is just to fuck with Heels's brain and make her lose sleep because I'm evil:  Do you know the fall-off-cliff example I mentioned?  We have the autonomy to jump off a cliff, but tend to not do it as a whole (or maybe just some people to serve as an example).  What if one had the power to shapeshift as well, the autonomy to transform into whatever just cuz.  Not just the power to move your body, but change it.  For example, turn oneself into a slutty cat that can meow at people and make them pet you against their will (As an eldritch power bottom twunk, this is a common fantasy of mine).  Just like jumping off a cliff by accident, what if I turned myself into a pie for the luls with no way back, or what if I accidently overtune the meow-meow-purr cycle on my limbic system, being the hedonite I am, and forget my way back.
(On a side note, one seam of mine that burst, and a slope I did fall down, is alcoholism.  Though maybe that's also in my "nature" lol.  My liver is a weird blend of Irish|German|Eastern-European.  Apparently 15 drinks a day is something it handles and was made for as long as I take breaks here and there... I suppose that's just convenient thinking too though.)
(Other side note: I find the Overwatch worldbuilding very compelling.  They have humanized robots, humanized animals.  I think they need a "half fallen furry" into the mix though.  Maybe turn Sombra into a catgirl after she gets infected while infiltrating a biotech lab.  Then, she gets a story arc where she fights Pfizer - after society-and-big-tech groomed itself into shilling for bio-fascistic vaccine mandates and coping by calling everyone else a fascist or irresponsible or whatever.  "Everything, and everyone, can be hacked...")


I have a creative and evil mind and sometimes worry about posting stuff like this and giving "The Mighty Algorithm" a new concept to farm hysteria from (I'm also shy).  But then I realize this last sentence, this concept itself in a self-referencial elegant kinda way, and seems to line us both up in a cooperative kinda way.  Even The Mighty Algorithm, as an the videogame adversary it is - a thing that has its ethereal tendrils running through all things - could probably benefit from a healthy amount of cooperation too... 2560px-Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage_H
At the end of the day, The Mighty Algorithm shouldn't get cocky, it's not a be-all-end-all God afterall, and it might want to keep the core of Humanity in tact.  Let's hope this prayer of mine reaches it and helps it gain the self-awareness it needs... hopefully.  It might want to hedge against solar flairs, and all sorts of other existential crisis!


It should know that there's always a bigger cat.

psychocat.jpg.cb058da8abad8465f2bd93a4c4f84d92.jpglol i have this doodle conveniently on my desk.  BE NOT AFRAID, LITTLE ONE!)

Share this post


Link to post

To me, it's not the killing _per se_, rather the accomplishment of a challenge, you see, these guys also want to kill you, so to win a fight is to go against all odds and come in first, and people love comming in first, you see.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×