Jimquisition: Desensitized to Violence

[DataSnake]

It is really sad that He grew up on an ARMY BASE and failed to teach you the difference between FEARING a gun and RESPECTING one. You shouldn't FEAR A gun any more than you FEAR a car or knife. But you should RESPECT those things and what they can do to an individual. And I know sure as shit they dont ever teach you to fear a gun in the military.

Maybe it's just a quirk of speaking, but I frequently use the word "fear" to indicate treating something with caution. I would, for example, say that you should fear a large dog or caustic chemicals, by which I would just mean "don't kick rottweilers or drink bleach", not necessarily "dogs and clorox are absolutely terrifying".

 

[Commissar Sae]

Speaking as someone who, through military deployments, has been aparty to and responsible for Jim's quote en quote "real violence," I have a comment I've held for awhile now about desensitization to violence from media in general. I does and it doesn't. It doesn't prepare or desensitize you to what you see when it's right there in front of you. In the same regard to a flight sim trainer for pilots. I doesn't, and isn't trying, to make the action of ACTUALLY flying the plane indistinguishable from the flight sim, but it makes the fear, apprehension, and hesitation from getting into a real cockpit less fearful. Violence in media is the same thing. I don't care how many SAW's you've seen or other gore flicks, when you see a real head blown off someone, it gets to you. But what seeing those movies or playing games like them DOES do is make you far less likely to recoil BEFORE you see it.

Granted it's anecdotal but I have to go on my own experience, I saw this in action in my own unit. I had a guy that was from the classic, SUPER classic "Brady bunch" family who didnt watch TV growing up, never had video games, didnt read or see violent things. Sheltered in all regards. Then you had me, growing up playing anything and everything, watching everything and anything, doing anything and everything, and "desensitized" to violence in a manner of speaking. When we both, on our first deployment, came across our fist bodies torn by bullets, we both recoiled at the sight. The difference was I didn't hesitate to walk over to look, it took coaxing to get him to come over. I was, more or less, just as bothered by it (but not as long as he was which I'm sure is another factor) but I more readily approached it. That's something I am sure that violent media does do. It takes the COMPLETELY unknown, and gives a person a toehold. Is that inherently a bad thing? No, I don't suppose it is, but does take SOME mystery away from the air of true violence and by definition that would desensitize the fear away from it (fear stemming from the unknown).

Well said. To a degree I don't think death should necessarily be feared, but that sense of revulsion and trepidation when faced with real violence is important. As a 20th century historian I've spent a ridiculous amount of time reading through memoirs and seeing pictures of some of the most horrific events of the last century. Every time I see those pictures or videos I feel that revulsion, but I feel it is important that those deaths be remembered. To a degree I think my consumption of violent media has given me the an edge at approaching that media than some of my colleagues lack.

That said I still skipped the clip. Just because I can watch death doesn't mean I generally want to.

 

[Mulberry]

When I was (a lot) younger and first encountered this here Internet thing, I saw a lot of gruesome material. I spent an inordinate amount of time on rotten.com and sites like it, looking at pictures of dismembered corpses smeared on tarmac. I didn't see the events taking place moments before the photographs were taken but I saw the aftermath in those pictures, and much of my late twenties was spent finding ever more disturbing pictures. I guess I had a stronger stomach back then.

But that supposedly stronger stomach didn't last forever. I also saw the footage of the murder of Daniel Pearl. To this day I wish I hadn't.

A few weeks ago, I watched someone die while I was eating my lunch. The cafeteria television was tuned to BBC News 24, which was showing some airborne footage of a missile striking a moving vehicle. There was lots of smoke and fire and the explosion looked very cool, well, as cool as some infra-red footage can... until I remembered that someone died in that explosion. Whether or not the occupants of the vehicle were terrorists, enemy combatants, or even allies wrongly targeted yet again, was immaterial. Footage of someone dying was considered by the BBC's programmers to be acceptable lunchtime viewing. No, we didn't see a close-up of the charred, dismembered corpses in the smoking remains of the vehicle, but they died all the same.

I thought I'd be able to watch this week's Jimquisition all the way through, but I couldn't do it. I got all the way to 1:20 before I changed my mind. I skipped forward to 1:49, because I simply didn't want to watch someone die again. I'm aware that people die, have seen people die, and one day I'll die too, but I don't want to watch the moment of death. And I especially don't want to watch the moment of death if it's in as brutal a manner as Dwyer's or Pearl's.

Far from being desensitised to violence, my own reaction has swung the other way over the years. It still won't stop me racking up the headshots in whatever blood-spattered game takes my fancy this week but, as Sterling has already point out, I can tell the difference. Bring on the cartoon violence, but I really don't want to watch the real thing.

None of this should be taken as a plea for censorship, though. The only censor whose opinion is worth anything is me. If I don't want to watch something then there's an Off button, and Jim Sterling and The Escapist should be commended for presenting the Dwyer footage in the way they did: "If you continue to watch this, you will see someone commit suicide. Skip to 1:49 to avoid seeing it." or words to that effect. No sugar coating, no coy adverts-disguised-as-warnings such as the legendary red triangles shown before "adult" programmes back when I was a kid, just the bare, unvarnished truth, just like (I assume; I didn't watch it) the footage itself. It's horrible, and should remain so; if we trivialise real violence then that might be what desensitises us.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

I think that that footage of the video game violence could have been portrayed much much better to be honest. Obviously it's not going to seem disturbing when it's mere short clips of explosions and people falling down layered into some wacky music in the background. If you used some gruesome Gears of War footage or God of War footage or Manhunt or other games of that nature with their accompanied sound then it wouldn't be clearly fake violence.

If you sped up the footage of the real suicide video and added some wacky music it wouldn't be nearly as disturbing as it was either.

I totally agree with all you said though. Screen violence is obviously fake. Real violence is obviously real. Our brain can differentiate between the two.

And the points about the media glorifying these mass murders is true too, and I wish things would change. I stopped watching the news a while ago because the internet is better, but in hindsight I'm so glad I stopped watching because those fuckers' ratings will go down.

 

[Kartoffelmos]

I'm actually surprised that so many people here are saying the footage didn't affect them much. I've been playing violent video games since I was nine and I had to look away as soon as he put the gun in his mouth.

 

[Rellik San]

snip

Well I certainly don't see the need for any good honest citizen of any country to own any semi-auto or automatic weapons, it just strikes me as over kill and completely unnecessary. The one thing both Brits and Americans seem to forget in these discussions (as from your slightly flippant attitude you did), both of us ave grown up in countries with very differing attitudes to fire arms. So of course I'm not going to know as much or see the reason for the deep seated desire to own one, it's not culturally ingrained in me. However I've also yet to see a single purpose where a small arm couldn't cope (with the obvious exception of hunting). Can you genuinely give me a reason that isn't an "extreme" scenario where you would need anything more than a pistol for home defence?

http://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html

And thank you, I will say what I like about the UK's violent crime problem. If I remember correctly, it's worse than the US and all of the EU? What difference does it make if you're robbed at gunpoint, or at bat point? Is rape less terrible at knifepoint, than with a gun at your back? There is no moral argument that the method used to commit a crime makes the crime worse. Where is your moral superiority coming from there?

Actually I can come up from a hit with a bat, I'm not getting up from a gunshot wound, even if the criminal did pull a gun on me, what would pulling my own do other then escalate the situation. Sure the crime if committed is terrible no matter what, but my point is, you can stab a heel through some ones foot and run, with a bat, you can get to safety, with a gun, you're shot in the back. The point is, the chances of successfully defending yourself from violent attack greatly improve, when the putting just a few feet between you can drastically lower the rate of you being harmed.

snip

As I say I'm not against good honest Americans or Brits or anyone owning a gun, but the point of gun control isn't to limit those people, it's not the boogey man here to remove your 2nd amendment rights, those are yours and yours alone and I or anyone else isn't planning on denying you them.

My firearms are not for hunting; they're for defense of myself and my family. So while you may be able to go down to a shooting club and use a number of different firearms, how many can you actually keep in your home? Will you be arrested and prosecuted if you use them in defense of your family?

Well it works via weapons class, a gun license allows you to indeed keep several firearms of your licensed class at home for defensive purposes, and as for prosecution, it entirely depends, typically the rule of thumb is if they come upstairs or it's a flat, they are intending harm and an action to wound or incapacitate is considered reasonable force. (of course you will now post about Tony Martin, but given the general public opinion on that debacle in this country, it isn't a good argument to make).

 

[mitchell271]

I've seen much more graphic stuff in my forensics classes, but this was much more disturbing than any of it. The dialogue leading up to the suicide was really, really depressing.
Good episode though!

 

[Quiotu]

And thank you, I will say what I like about the UK's violent crime problem. If I remember correctly, it's worse than the US and all of the EU? What difference does it make if you're robbed at gunpoint, or at bat point? Is rape less terrible at knifepoint, than with a gun at your back? There is no moral argument that the method used to commit a crime makes the crime worse. Where is your moral superiority coming from there?

Well then would you say there's a middleman there somewhere, perhaps? After all, UK has four times as many violent crimes per capita than the US, but the US also has 4 times the homicides of the UK per capita. It's a bit stupid to compare violent crime to murder at all, but I suppose that's where we have to go with this. Here's a hint, you SURVIVE a violent crime.

And no, banning guns isn't the answer... don't get me wrong there. It wouldn't solve the problem... there's almost a gun for every person in America right now. Regulate, register, restrict... that would do wonders. Putting some actual money into our mental health system would also help a lot. I'm not worried about people who have a few guns for hunting and self defense, I'm worried about the ones that stockpile them like canned peaches, ready for that magical day when society collapses.

I'm not scared of a gun, I'm scared of whatever nutball has access to them, or ends up pointing one towards me.

 

[splog the spag]

I can not express how much the continual blame for video games being the cause of violence pisses me off, i am a gamer and also an ex royal green jacket. i have served in some of the most god forsaken hell holes this planet has to offer and not once of all the horrors i have seen has it ever been due to violent video games, the simple fact is that as human beings when push comes to shove we are all capable of performing horrible atrocity's. Putting the blame on video games rather than our own failings as human beings is not only a cheep cop out it also stops us from accepting our true nature and doing some thing constructive about changing it.

 

[jimplunder]

I don't think I can write much that hasn't been written already. I read the first couple of pages of comments and pretty much anything that would have been "new" in my entry was already said. But I do have to say when Jim described the video, I didn't want to see it. What I ended up doing was taking off my headset, shielding my eyes, so I could barely see through my fingers (and I took off my glasses so the image would be blurry) and watched it. It still doesn't get any better... I've seen some violent things in my life (although nothing as severe as seeing people get shot or disemboweled or anything), and it still unnerves me.

The thing about video game violence is you can separate between "I'm killing a pixel" and "I'm killing a person". I know that when I shoot someone (or something) in a game, there's no real world repercussions for that act. I can do it because I know that if I run over that old lady going 120 MPH in a game, there's no one who's going to miss her and no one is going to care (except for maybe the fictitious police) because in another 1000 feet, she's going to be deleted from the game's cache. If I accidentally hit someone while driving in real life, I would probably stop, panic, throw up, and then call for help. There's nothing that could prepare you for that kind of situation, even if you see it in games.

There are people who cannot separate pixel from person, but it is not the video game that causes that. It's their mental state. Either they have not developed mentally enough (as may be the case in children) or perhaps they've lost touch with reality. I'm not a psychiatrist/psychologist/neurologist/etc. But blaming something that's completely unrelated to the act at hand is never constructive. Yahtzee once said in one of his videos (I can't remember which one...) that pretty much if someone goes on a shooting rampage and someone ends up finding ONE video game in their house and it's remotely violent, that MUST have been the trigger for their sociopathic behavior. As we gamers all know, clicking on thousands of demons in Diablo surely prepares you to go out and kill people.

 

[Rellik San]

And thank you, I will say what I like about the UK's violent crime problem. If I remember correctly, it's worse than the US and all of the EU? What difference does it make if you're robbed at gunpoint, or at bat point? Is rape less terrible at knifepoint, than with a gun at your back? There is no moral argument that the method used to commit a crime makes the crime worse. Where is your moral superiority coming from there?

Well then would you say there's a middleman there somewhere, perhaps? After all, UK has four times as many violent crimes per capita than the US, but the US also has 4 times the homicides of the UK per capita. It's a bit stupid to compare violent crime to murder at all, but I suppose that's where we have to go with this. Here's a hint, you SURVIVE a violent crime.

And no, banning guns isn't the answer... don't get me wrong there. It wouldn't solve the problem... there's almost a gun for every person in America right now. Regulate, register, restrict... that would do wonders. Putting some actual money into our mental health system would also help a lot. I'm not worried about people who have a few guns for hunting and self defense, I'm worried about the ones that stockpile them like canned peaches, ready for that magical day when society collapses.

I'm not scared of a gun, I'm scared of whatever nutball has access to them, or ends up pointing one towards me.

You sir, have said what I was trying to say much better then I have. Kudos to you.

 

[90sgamer]

I'm generally not a big fan, but this was your best video I've seen Jim. Spot on in every way. Well done!

 

[Piecewise]

I'm going to play devils advocate to this argument, just because I can.

So we tend to be disgusted by real violence because it's so much more, well, real then the exaggerated portrayals games and movies and such. Thats fair. But what if those, admittedly already mentally unstable, kids/adolescents see these depictions and think thats what real life is going to be like. They see call of duty or whatever shooter and think that real life will be just like that, minus the icons and health bars and such. And its only AFTER they commit their acts that the reality of it all, of their actions and the difference between fiction and reality sets in? It would make sense when you look at the fact that the killer in sandyhook had enough ammunition to keep going for quite a while, but after a very short spree stopped and took his own life. This pattern is found throughout mass shootings, with only the most deranged or cold individuals continuing beyond that first magazine, beyond that first pause to look at what they did.

Admittedly, it's still their own mental illness that made the action possible, but didn't the unrealistic and flippant portrayals of violence from media, be it movie, game, tv or whatever, play some part in allowing them to justify their actions to themselves?


I ask this because someone else will ask this eventually, and they won't be as friendly about it.

 

[Mithcha]

That was surreal. Seen gore vids and such before, mostly as a kid (16+), but that made me look away in...I think it was horror. It felt more personal somehow, up close and all that. *shudder*

Anyways...Sterling being God as usual. Can't complain.

 

[RedgraveStorm]

Great video Jim. That footage was disturbing, I didn't even realize the guy had shot himself for a second.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Hey! That's my Party Flower animation!

 

[Souplex]

When I saw an age-gate before a Jim video I was hoping for a repeat of Space Wizards 3: A Gay Erotic Love Story.
I am displeased.