Really great piece. Is it embarrassing to admit that, despite having played two Just Cause games, I didn't get the pun/double meaning of the title until now? Anyway there's a lot that could be...
Really great piece. Is it embarrassing to admit that, despite having played two Just Cause games, I didn't get the pun/double meaning of the title until now?
Anyway there's a lot that could be said about video games where the main (often, only) verb available to the player is violence, is shooting or slashing or whatever. The narrow way it forces you to engage with the world, and reduce characters into either "allies who would kill for you" or "enemies to be killed." Anyway that's not what the essay is about, really. The videogame stuff is more a lead in to talk about political realities.
The author talks a lot about left-wing violence, and of course it's important to note that the right is currently much more violent and much more powerful in the world. But he's right, and I've often observed leftists who seem to possess a genuine bloodlust beneath their high-minded ideals. You sometimes see it from the "eat the rich" crowd, some of whom I have heard unironically quote the murderer from Disco Elysium: "the rich are not human." This sort of dehumanization is something I wish the article had touched on, as it's also very common in games.
Not to get controversial, but I sometimes hear similar sentiments from certain pro-Palestine people given to defending Hamas and the October 7 attacks. They'll say, "Israel and the West have conducted an indefensible, century-long violent colonial project on the people of Palestine" ( unambiguously true). "And when living under this violent colonial regime, naturally, people become radicalized and want to fight back to protect their families or communities" (true). "Therefore, the actions of Hamas are justified."
Maybe it's me, but I've never been able to follow that argument to its conclusion. I think possibly I simply don't believe that murder, violence and terrorism can ever be justified, whereas even a lot of left wing people implicitly believe that if you do enough evil, inflict enough colonialism, you can forfeit your humanity, and anything done to you, no matter how pointless, gratuitous or cruel, can safely be justified.
I could keep rambling on, but the upshot is that this post is really well-written and gave me some thinking to do this morning. Much appreciated :)
I mean, I don't WANT to resort to that first. But if they don't listen to words, stuff the ballots, and even pay off courts, there's only one box left if we really want change. Now the rich is...
I've often observed leftists who seem to possess a genuine bloodlust beneath their high-minded ideals. You sometimes see it from the "eat the rich" crowd, some of whom I have heard unironically quote the murderer from Disco Elysium: "the rich are not human." This sort of dehumanization is something I wish the article had touched on, as it's also very common in games.
I mean, I don't WANT to resort to that first. But if they don't listen to words, stuff the ballots, and even pay off courts, there's only one box left if we really want change. Now the rich is even in the white house, for however long his 80YO body holds out for. It all really proves the sentiment of "Science advances one funeral at a time".
I think possibly I simply don't believe that murder, violence and terrorism can ever be justified, whereas even a lot of left wing people implicitly believe that if you do enough evil, inflict enough colonialism, you can forfeit your humanity, and anything done to you, no matter how pointless, gratuitous or cruel, can safely be justified.
Every law has exceptions for a reason. Murder in self defense is justifiable, legally speaking. Because we accept that you have the right to defend your life if someone puts it in danger.
The issue of course, is that it's rarely that black and white. Part of dehumanization is trying to convince yourself or others that you are under attack. So you see how quickly this gets contorted. I'm not a pacisfist at all, but I understand that we're in a post truth society that wants to justify violence. Oftentimes with flimsy logic.
I am immediately skeptical of this guys understanding of gaming culture. Its like that King of the Hill episode where Hank tries to play GTA. Except Hank ends up learning to appreciate the game....
Reveling in violence unfortunately has the potential to interfere with the average person’s enjoyment of the game, at least among those with some trace of conscience.
I am immediately skeptical of this guys understanding of gaming culture.
Its like that King of the Hill episode where Hank tries to play GTA. Except Hank ends up learning to appreciate the game.
Noob mindset aside, I think he makes a good point. I think people naturally have some amount of antisocial tendencies that they are forced to keep under control in civil society. That creates tension you cant hold in forever so people need some kind of outlet. So when there are certain socially acceptable forms of antisocial behavior, like being a jerk in the context of political activism or competitions or a mosh pit, people will gravitate toward those outlets.
And to some extent, the knowledge that they can only indulge in that behavior in limited quantities might lead people to overindulge in those moments and actually be worse overall than if they had just never tried to restrain themselves to begin with.
Reveling in violence unfortunately has the potential to interfere with the average person’s enjoyment of [video games], at least among those with some trace of conscience. Most games are careful therefore to provide some pretext for the violence. The easiest way to do this is of course just to put the enemies outside the usual circle of moral concern, by making them aliens, insects or robots. In other cases, the game seeks to provide the user with some reason to commit murder – although in fairness, some of these get weirdly convoluted […]
Sometimes the pretext is so thin that it becomes, in itself, a source of amusement. My favorite example of this is the Just Cause video game series. […] They just put a big sticker on the box stipulating that all of your in-game actions are performed in the service of a just case. Conscience salved, problem solved.
…
Some movies are self-conscious about this dynamic and play with it in various ways. David Cronenberg’s film A History of Violence is particularly effective at tormenting its audience on this point. Cronenberg repeatedly builds up tension, giving the audience license to enjoy the explosions of violence that ensue, but then rather than allowing the catharsis to persist, turns around and makes the audience regret the momentary pleasure they took. Each new episode of violence, far from solving any problem, simply makes things worse. Cronenberg uses this to punish the audience, saying in effect, “Here you go: is this really what you wanted? Did you really think this was going to solve anything?”
The tension between our darker impulses and the rationalizations that we accept arises, not just in entertainment, but in real life as well. […] There are many ambiguous social contexts, in which individuals could be acting out of a high-minded concern for justice, and where some of them no doubt are, but where others are simply indulging their taste for conflict, hatred, or violence. Under the circumstances of struggle it can be difficult to tell these motives apart, and many people will be reluctant to fracture their coalition by distancing themselves from those with more dubious one. This can create situations that risk spiraling out of control.
Really great piece. Is it embarrassing to admit that, despite having played two Just Cause games, I didn't get the pun/double meaning of the title until now?
Anyway there's a lot that could be said about video games where the main (often, only) verb available to the player is violence, is shooting or slashing or whatever. The narrow way it forces you to engage with the world, and reduce characters into either "allies who would kill for you" or "enemies to be killed." Anyway that's not what the essay is about, really. The videogame stuff is more a lead in to talk about political realities.
The author talks a lot about left-wing violence, and of course it's important to note that the right is currently much more violent and much more powerful in the world. But he's right, and I've often observed leftists who seem to possess a genuine bloodlust beneath their high-minded ideals. You sometimes see it from the "eat the rich" crowd, some of whom I have heard unironically quote the murderer from Disco Elysium: "the rich are not human." This sort of dehumanization is something I wish the article had touched on, as it's also very common in games.
Not to get controversial, but I sometimes hear similar sentiments from certain pro-Palestine people given to defending Hamas and the October 7 attacks. They'll say, "Israel and the West have conducted an indefensible, century-long violent colonial project on the people of Palestine" ( unambiguously true). "And when living under this violent colonial regime, naturally, people become radicalized and want to fight back to protect their families or communities" (true). "Therefore, the actions of Hamas are justified."
Maybe it's me, but I've never been able to follow that argument to its conclusion. I think possibly I simply don't believe that murder, violence and terrorism can ever be justified, whereas even a lot of left wing people implicitly believe that if you do enough evil, inflict enough colonialism, you can forfeit your humanity, and anything done to you, no matter how pointless, gratuitous or cruel, can safely be justified.
I could keep rambling on, but the upshot is that this post is really well-written and gave me some thinking to do this morning. Much appreciated :)
I mean, I don't WANT to resort to that first. But if they don't listen to words, stuff the ballots, and even pay off courts, there's only one box left if we really want change. Now the rich is even in the white house, for however long his 80YO body holds out for. It all really proves the sentiment of "Science advances one funeral at a time".
Every law has exceptions for a reason. Murder in self defense is justifiable, legally speaking. Because we accept that you have the right to defend your life if someone puts it in danger.
The issue of course, is that it's rarely that black and white. Part of dehumanization is trying to convince yourself or others that you are under attack. So you see how quickly this gets contorted. I'm not a pacisfist at all, but I understand that we're in a post truth society that wants to justify violence. Oftentimes with flimsy logic.
I am immediately skeptical of this guys understanding of gaming culture.
Its like that King of the Hill episode where Hank tries to play GTA. Except Hank ends up learning to appreciate the game.
Noob mindset aside, I think he makes a good point. I think people naturally have some amount of antisocial tendencies that they are forced to keep under control in civil society. That creates tension you cant hold in forever so people need some kind of outlet. So when there are certain socially acceptable forms of antisocial behavior, like being a jerk in the context of political activism or competitions or a mosh pit, people will gravitate toward those outlets.
And to some extent, the knowledge that they can only indulge in that behavior in limited quantities might lead people to overindulge in those moments and actually be worse overall than if they had just never tried to restrain themselves to begin with.
From the essay:
…