A Quentin Tarantino flick would probably be hell.
I wonder what’s the deal with Tarantino. I definitely didn’t like his last movie and I wonder what he is trying to say. At first sight he just likes violence. I used to think that he was a pacifist of sorts who depicted violence to get people to see what’s wrong with violence. Now I’m not sure that’s his purpose.
I’m not. I’m a content creator more so than a content producer. I take in some media, but it is a lot less than before I became a libertarian, and I suspect it will become even less going forward.
I don’t see how this comment is relevant or accurate. I claimed Jacob had sociopathic tendencies based on the positions he has shared on this forum regarding murder, war, political power etc. It wasn’t because he played video games, although I did make the point that someone with sociopathic tendencies is going to be attracted to simulated violence (real violence as well).
Indeed. Which is why I don’t know why you claim I did associate them.
But it isn’t. Not the the simplest libertarian definition there is. You’re making the error you and others are accusing me of. That I am conflating libertarianism with values. What I have tried to say s that I don’t think that simulating aggression is consistent with non-aggression as a personal philosophy. That’s my opinion. Yours may differ. If it does, and you feel that simulation is completely distinct from reality, then I made the follow up claim, that then based on that reasoning, you could simulate anything and it wouldn’t be in conflict with philosophical grounding.
You could simulate rape, killing your parents, falling in love with a princess, anything. Although I suspect some of you might feel uncomfortable if people were playing a game where they simulated raping someone you know or love. At that point, the simulation might strike a little too close to reality for comfort.
Or maybe not. Maybe the military makes video games because they like to play video games. Maybe they run the troops through bespoke video game simulations knowing full well that simulation is not the same as reality, and doesn’t inform us on how to act. I don’t claim to know that. I can only offer theories.
^I didn’t read the other posts, and I am not relating libertarianism to any values. I’m simply saying I see nothing wrong with a person playing a violent game or watching a violent movie. They simply portray a story, it is not real.
Right. And that seems to be confusing some people.
Well, I am saying more than that. I am saying I believe that simulating aggression is not consistent with non-aggression. That is why I dislike violent video games, all forms of violent fiction (and I’m obviously not a big fan of violent non-fiction either).
On forums in particular, talk is cheap. What does it cost to be a libertarian? Oh, I hate the state, but I pay taxes. Oh, I hate war, but I keep paying taxes to pay for it. Oh, I hate being a slave, but I will not move and become stateless. Oh, fiat money is fraud, but I don’t participate in counter-economics.
It is very, very cheap to be a libertarian in words. It is another thing to try to be libertarian in action. To make your life about more than being angry or sign waving for Ron Paul, but about trying to live consistent with your principles, that yes, extend beyond the act of discussion and debate. The sort of difference that set Karl Hess apart from so many of his libertarian contemporaries who were great talkers and writers, but not great doers.
So a libertarian who says, “Yeah, I am anti-imperialist, anti-war, anti-violence, anti-state” but spends hours a week playing war games modeled on the American state, military, empire etc, seems to me to have a disconnect. It’s like saying what we find aesthetically pleasing is the opposite of our values, and this is just something we never question and others should not question either.
Well I questioned it. And I suppose in retrospect, I got what I expected to get back.
I don’t think Tarantino has any main point. Movies don’t have to. Tarantino just likes to show interesting dialog, plot twists, and plays with the aesthetics of violence. What I really like about him as a director is that he avoids CGI, and uses more classical effects. Art doesn’t need to have a deeper meaning, it can simply be entertaining or interesting.
^Also, I don’t play video games made by the military. I seriously doubt that Naughty Dog would make Uncharted because they wanted simulate the military. Actually, in the game in some parts of the game, you help defend people from a foreign military. I play it not because it is violent, but because it is well made, innovative, has a good story and most importantly fun. And fake. Noone would want to play it if you actually hurt people. Even children understand the violence in a form of art has no correlation with real life. I am not aggressive against someone when I play uncharted, neither when I shoot a gun at a fake target, or anything else which isn’t actual aggression. Plus there are plenty of points where portrayal of violence is used to portray violence as wrong. I love movies with good gore, and I love movies with action, but the sight of blood, and idea of killing an animal, let alone a person outside of justified reasons disgusts me.
Both people who play Uncharted (or insert any media with violence in it, whether it has good or bad intentions, justified or unjustified violence) on this forum, or people who dislike media with violence in it stick to Libertarian principles as long as they don’t act in aggression or preach it.
So violence is unpleasant. Aggression is wrong. Promotion of aggression is generally culturally unlibertarian. I’ll agree with that premises.
However, I do not think violence and aggression shouldn’t be excluded from libertarian fiction. If anything, they should be included whenever it was appropriate.
Think back to Metal Gear Solid 2, for example. Although it is very explicitly violent, it also have theme of pacifism, deal with the issue of nuclear proliferation, propaganda and censorship, as well the effect of wars on children and adults, etc.
I also have a chance of playing MG4(though not being able to experience the whole story). The story in the end celebrates the end of a military-industrial complex and the beginning of a new era.
If anything, the Metal Gear series is very anti-war. When you have to face off and destroy world destroying nuclear tanks, it tend to come out with a pacifistic tone.
Couldn’t pick a better series for that. I would say playing the Metal Gear Solid series since I was 8 has a strong influence on my political views. I’m sure even Liberty Student would enjoy playing that game. It literally gives you the option of whether you want to simply knock your enemies out, and even at points condemns your murderous actions. The series is clearly anti war. Who wouldn’t want to stop nuclear war?
Tarantino took a top tier cliche idea (hyperbolic, Jewish revenge fantasy) for a story, and managed to deal sweet poetic justice to the movie’s target audience.
I’d like to see if anyone can name one of the three examples from the movie.
kiba and lal,
I get that people think I am attacking the genre. I cannot stress enough, that I am not attacking video games as a whole, and so I don’t need to know every exception. I think I made it very clear what sort of games in a particular I am speaking about.
I have played video games, and I do own video games (somewhere around here). I get the joy and entertainment value of gaming.
But my point was never about sitting around gaming, as much as what the games involved.
Okay, my response is specifically targeted towards pages 1 & 2 of the thread so far. I think folks are confusing cultural leanings with governmental involvement here. First and foremost the image of the “super soldier” is pretty old in American literature, going back to the first ‘heroes’ like Davy Crocket (at the Alamo) and Andrew Jackson (war of 1812 at New Orleans). So, the culture of the US is steeped in the bullshit of soldiers being all super[hero] and morally right in their course regardless of the reality of their situation. Fuck, even Starship Troopers had that kind of zeal and most of the book was more about individual responsibility to others. And there are many other examples of this in American literature.
Anyways, my point is that video games like FPSes largely started out as war games like paint ball. They were cheaper to play than paint ball and you didn’t have to leave your home or be mildly fit enough to jog/sprint to play. Later on some titles went toward science fiction (Alien vs Predator, Quake series, Prey, Doom series, and etc), some went toward being cartoony and unrealistic (Team Fortress 2 comes to mind, I believe there were others, but I can’t think of any… Maybe Duke Nukem 3d?), and a few decided to go ultra-realistic. And the ultra-realistic ones were really just tapping into the old “super soldier” cultural meme that resonates with Americans. That’s why they’re popular. Look at all the war films (past and modern), look at the literature (as I emphasized earlier).
So the US Army doesn’t have to go full tilt to get its image all polished up as the culture of America already has this bullshit being layered on everyone meters thick. And bitching about the America’s Army video game stop it, it’s only one title with little to no success. It’s a buggy mess especially on multiplayer. TF2 is less buggy than it is and probably has more players worldwide.
As for the ethics of these games, I’m going to argue like Aristotle did, it’s cathartic to blow shit up. It’s better to do it on screen than to do it in real life (unless you own a bunch of junk cars, explosives and land out in the middle of no where, then please record it and post on youtube!). That’s why we love comic books where Batman kicks in the Joker’s teeth. Violent depictions themselves are never immoral so long as their aim is not to incite real violence in the world. Otherwise, every piece of classical literature would be labeled obscene today.
The cheapest of all is to lie to yourself. Don’t lie to yourself. You are no more liberated from us for not playing violent computer games. There is no cultural libertarianism. There is no way to tell a libertarian from a non-libertarian in a statist world. You are as much of a slave as the rest of us. Not playing games and not liking fiction does not mean anything.
The only thing separating a sincere libertarian from a non-libertarian or a non-sincere libertarian is that the first one would shed his chains in an instant given an opportunity. But until opportunity presents itself there is no way to tell the three apart. The only way to make sure a slave is enslaved in spirit is to give him a chance at escape. Until then all is cheap. Not playing video games particularly so.
Would those popular horror games fall under the super soldier category? You have games like Dead Space, Half-Life, and Doom which use the “what are the odds against all the odds?” formula.
IOW:
-
Giant colonies get raped by a few well-fed ghoulies.
-
Your average mute, with little to no combat skills, doesn’t break a sweat disposing of ghoul army with his signatory gardening tool.
-
Average mute constantly faces certain death situations; either escaping them through sheer chance with seconds to spare, or by utilizing conveniently placed means within his environment.
-
The final boss throws all the ghouls he can muster (2-5 at a time lol) to impede said mute in achieving his final objective.
-
The final boss is a giant telepathic commander of the ghoul army. It doesn’t get out much, and goes down like newborn kitten.
-
Just another day at the job. The end.
I didn’t think it would be this hard, or that being so hard, it would become easier.
I don’t believe I ever claimed to be more liberated. This is not a competition between you and I. I want to be more liberated than I am now. It is a challenge to improve my condition.
Nonsense. Karl Hess was clearly a libertarian in a statist world. Ghandi was clearly a libertarian in a statist world. Ron Paul is clearly a libertarian in a statist world. Irwin Schiff is clearly a libertarian in a statist world. Mike Gogulski is clearly a libertarian in a statist world.
Ah yes, the slave refrain. You can’t climb out, we’re all stuck here.
And I would argue then, that playing games and liking fiction doesn’t mean anything. So the topic is meaningless.
If you wait for an opportunity to not be a slave, you will be a slave a long time. We make our luck.
See my list above of slaves who didn’t accept that an opportunity had to be given to them.
I don’t think it’s a stretch, sure.
Please no, some people haven’t been able to see it yet (me) cause their netflix.com que says long wait. Don’t ruin it!
Irwin Schiff is a sincere libertarian. A fact he demonstrated with certain actions he took with which he defied the state. We can not conclude that he was a sincere libertarian from the culture he subscribes to. Whether he enjoys violent entertainment products or not is irrelevant to the question. For all we know his favorite movie is the Wild Bunch.
Really, lets not forget the context of this talk. Indeed being a tax resistor makes one a libertarian-in-action. As probably does running around the forest ambushing sheriff’s deputies First Blood style, and a number of other possibilities. But choosing not to play violent games does not make one a libertarian-in-action to any extent whatsoever. There is no consequence for the state if one drops out of playing video games. It is irrelevant if it costs you to drop out of it. Does it costs the state?
If it does not, then you are still in the confines of the statist world to the same extent everyone else is (bar Irwin Schiff and John Rambo). Rebellion via culture is cheap. It is no rebellion at all. It does not make one any more like Irwin Schiff.
I have been watching this thread with some interest as it is germane to what I’ve been going through recently. I actually just sold off the last of my (all violent) video games. I thought maybe I would find some answers to my own questions about living a life of non-aggression. Well, I didn’t, and have a few questions of my own (I’m pretty new to libertarianism, so please bear with me if I seem naive…)
This is exactly my experience; actually I was stunned when I realized this, and felt duped once again.
Since embracing the NAP I’ve felt a lot of disquiet about practicing in fantasy what I denounce in reality. Why would I keep the enabling tools of aggressors? It feels like being released from slavery but continuing to wear chains because they’re comforting.
I guess I indirectly took this challenge - MW2, Bioshock, GTA, all the Tom Clancy titles. I used to play these games and found them to be lots of fun. But since I learned about the NAP I can’t enjoy these games anymore. Why?
Why should witnessing the violent death of a real human being reduce me to tears, but watching the same death pixelated have no impact - and even be “fun” if it is at my whim?
I agree. More importantly, not every decision is made after careful, logical consideration. Many are influenced or even dictated by emotion. Fortunately only once in my life have I had to make a reflexive decision as to whether to react violently to a perceived threat. I can assure you it was purely reflexive and there was no time for reasoning. I chose not to aggress, and the situation defused (I had no way of knowing this would be the outcome). Knowing that this situation may occur again, should I not avoid mentally training myself to seek a violent solution to a conflict?
I read somewhere that previous to Vietnam War, a high percentage of soldiers would not fire on the enemy given the chance, so the Army switched from bullseyes to human-shaped targets to condition soldiers to fire on humans without thought. Ever since then I have not been able to shoot at human silhouettes at the range, I stick with bullseyes. Silhouettes just remind me of the state’s deceit…
I realize choices in video games/movies are subjective and are not black and white. But aggression and non-aggression are two extremes; I think if life were a path which connected these two, I would want each choice that I made to be a step toward non-aggression, rather than the opposite direction. Even when these choices are completely individual and involve no other parties.
Can you clarify why you think this is negative? This sounds like an ideal to me.
Ditto. I feel physically ill when I think that my taxes contribute to murder. For now, I am too fearful to do anything about it. This is why it is so important to me to understand the relationship between embracing non-aggression in both thought and action. I am tired of being a coward.
Ditto again. I loved Stargate and wish I could enjoy it as I once did!
I have not been able to stop thinking about this since I learned about the NAP.
Maybe I feel this way because the horror of what I used to support is still too near. I am surprised to find my instincts are so out of sync with the majority of people on this thread.
Bless you LC. I understand your discomfort and it’s only in the last couple months I have been able to come to terms with it after 2 years of struggling internally over what rejecting aggression means to me. The change in perspective can be a real challenge emotionally and intellectually.
I know some other people here have expressed similar sentiments before, who they were, I cannot remember. But you’re not alone by any means.
I have laid in bed at night staring at the ceiling, thinking nothing else. When the paradigm shifts hard, it really hits you in ways you cannot imagine.