Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA13173 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Sun, 28 Apr 2002 21:19:10 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [22.214.171.124] User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.2509 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 21:10:48 +0100 Subject: Re: Media and Violence From: Steve Drew <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-ID: <B8F20AAF.1AAemail@example.com> In-Reply-To: <200204281848.TAA12994@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk> Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Apr 2002 20:13:16.0796 (UTC) FILETIME=[21FECBC0:01C1EEF1] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:18:39 -0400
> From: Wade Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: Media and Violence
> On Friday, April 26, 2002, at 03:52 , Steve Drew wrote:
>> Yes it degenerated in to a bloody shamlbes over time as people
>> sought to out
>> do each other in staging ever more lavish productions. The
>> people had been
>> desensitised to the extreme violence in the games. They had
>> been told by
>> their leaders that the games were good, and made attendance virtually
> This is putting the cart before the horse. Nobody ever needed to
> be told that the blood of the alien or the stranger was a 'good'
Care to explain how we evolved a civil society with this scenario?
>or ever needed to be 'desensitized' - whatever the hell
> that means.
It means that I don't think most people are particularly brutal etc and that
they need to get the idea that violence is an acceptable norm. One way is
to copy the leader, which, as the leader is the guy (usually) with the women
and the wealth seems sensible if you look at from the point of evolution.
Copy what works.
> Being told by leaders as a necessary part of the entertainment
> is, IMHO, bull pucky and liberal whining apologetics for the
> basic human fact that we like killing 'Them', and always have,
> and always will.
Yep it is your opinion. Argument please. Killing, or , attempting to kill
another in any society with few rules is a risky thing to do biologically,
as you run the risk of being terminated your self. I'll go with suspicion
and hostility, coupled with fear rather than your idea of blood lust.
One idea that I did come across is that, unlike many species who have ways
of settling disputes that don't result in death, is that ours don't work as
well. But it is still not the same thing. (I think I read it as something to
do with conflict resolution theory).
> Extreme violence was always part of these spectacles. Tribes
> throughout history have brought home the bones and the blood and
> the separated sinews of the peoples over the hill. Nothing was
> desensitizing them of the need to cleave flesh from bones, and
> limbs from torsos.
Need?! Could you elaborate on this, as I generally am not disposed to
slicing my neighbours up (Not part of my 'tribe') :-)
> - - Wade
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 28 2002 - 21:30:56 BST