liberty student:

 Despite the great sci-fi backdrop, the show is basically a mockery of what I would hope exploration would be.  And likewise, I saw the trailer for the new Iron Man, and all I could think throughout, is how much private property gets destroyed in order to protect people's private property.

That sort of doublethink is exactly what the state relies on.

Maybe if libertarians stop supporting pro-violence or pro-state entertainment, there will be less of it, and maybe even a market for entertainment about markets, which I would consider to be double good.  Diminish the state, raise up markets.

If only we could align our aesthetics with our values.  I can't imagine it's easy to preach peace and non-aggression when everyone knows one spends hours each day getting virtual kills.

filc:

Aside from that, there are video games that have provided some truly brilliant experiences.

I don't doubt that.  But the FPS genre and even the RTS strategy genre (much to my dismay) have become very hollow and almost unplayable for people who are entertained by building rather than destroying.

 Is everything with you a double think? Maybe ya, know, lot of people like blowing stuff up. It is a universal obsession. We know that these obsession if acted in real life, hurt like hell.

 

 

(Off-topic: I am working a tetris clone and planning a multiplayer tetris in which cooperative or competitve behaviors are explored)

Knight_of_BAAWA:

And yet clearly The Lord of the Rings trilogy is fantasy. Fiction. Right?

wilderness:

of course.  i know logic too much to say otherwise, but how many people have you come across that don't understand logic?

Quite a few, including LS, who seems to think that I'm bitter about not being a mod anymore. Little does he know that I see through him, and that should he not like being called out for his behavior--perhaps he should change his behavior.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

The problem comes in when people want to equate fantasy with reality--when they want us to believe that we've always been at war with Eastasia or that 2 + 2 = 5. Yes, propaganda plays that role.

wilderness:

indeed.  Aristotilean logic generally isn't taught in public schools and I believe Catholic schools dropped it from their cirriculum in the 1990's.  There's people on TV or for that matter, people that set-up on a podium in front of a white building and say something and most people think of it as fact.

Or are celebrities, because anything a celebrity says must be true. After all: they're celebrities. 

 

wilderness:

They take their word on it.  They believe it.  And any questioning of it is demonized into being either a conspiracy or the person is denounced as a leftist or rightist but the facts or logic are hardly ever actually debated in the so-called mainstream public arena.  How many people would jump off a bridge if Obama or Bush asked them to in the name of humanitarian or national security priorities.

Far too many.

 

wilderness:

here's a list of what's been subverted in the classroom:  logic, increasingly sound theoretical economics (if not near or at 100%), history is told through the eyes of the victor, sociology is a joke with their emphasis on survey's and theoreticals on how society can be construed in a positivist or natural science way, picking up a trade is still demonized over going to the university for some Art degree that will only find most people a job at McDonald's, etc....  I'm generalizing here.

State-run education isn't for learning anything good; it's for making good little sheep.

 

kiba:

Is everything with you a double think?

???

kiba:

Maybe ya, know, lot of people like blowing stuff up.

And maybe some people don't.  So?

kiba:

It is a universal obsession.

Not for Wilderness and I.  I suspect there are more people in the world who feel the way we do.

kiba:

We know that these obsession if acted in real life, hurt like hell.

And yet millions of people do it in real life as well.  Again note, not everyone.

I don't know if you're trying to make an argument or just standing up for gamers, but the issue isn't playing games.  I think I have already provided proof about America's Army which refutes the original objections to the state encouraged desentivity to violence that was defended by some gamers here.

Whatever you want to eat, smoke drink or put into your mind, is your business.  But if you're really against violence, I am pointing out that simulating violence seems to be a contradiction of that.  Unless the argument is made that it is different from real violence, to which I will reply that so is simulated rape.  And if you're ok with one based on the premise that it is not real, then you really can't condemn the other.  And if that is your position, more power to you.  It's not mine.

auctionguy10:

I apologize if I put you in that category- but since you responded to me I thought you were in agreement with him- lol that's the only reason me and you are even having a back and forth.

Right, so you assumed.  At least you apologized.  Thank you.  Apology accepted.

liberty student:

And yet millions of people do it in real life as well.  Again note, not everyone.

I don't know if you're trying to make an argument or just standing up for gamers, but the issue isn't playing games.  I think I have already provided proof about America's Army which refutes the original objections to the state encouraged desentivity to violence that was defended by some gamers here.

Whatever you want to eat, smoke drink or put into your mind, is your business.  But if you're really against violence, I am pointing out that simulating violence seems to be a contradiction of that.  Unless the argument is made that it is different from real violence, to which I will reply that so is simulated rape.  And if you're ok with one based on the premise that it is not real, then you really can't condemn the other.  And if that is your position, more power to you.  It's not mine.

I see no sense in equivocating simulated rape and violence as actual rape and violence. It is simply a matter of what constitutes as facts.

kiba:

I see no sense in equivocating simulated rape and violence as actual rape and violence. It is simply a matter of what constitutes as facts.

Fair enough.  I think you are the first person in this thread to admit this.  Thanks.

liberty student:

Whatever you want to eat, smoke drink or put into your mind, is your business.  But if you're really against violence, I am pointing out that simulating violence seems to be a contradiction of that.

But it isn't. The fictional is just that: fictional. Not real. Spider-man doesn't really exist.

liberty student:

auctionguy10:

I apologize if I put you in that category- but since you responded to me I thought you were in agreement with him- lol that's the only reason me and you are even having a back and forth.

Right, so you assumed.  At least you apologized.  Thank you.  Apology accepted.

Lol yeah man- it was a misunderstanding- which is why I accepted that I couldn't find where you quoted the things in my response to you- oh well things get blown out of proportion sometimes but no big deal.

liberty student:

Whatever you want to eat, smoke drink or put into your mind, is your business.  But if you're really against violence, I am pointing out that simulating violence seems to be a contradiction of that.  Unless the argument is made that it is different from real violence, to which I will reply that so is simulated rape.  And if you're ok with one based on the premise that it is not real, then you really can't condemn the other.  And if that is your position, more power to you.  It's not mine.

It is good that you admit that you are speaking not from a libertarian perspective, but from some type of pacifist perspective.

 

He's also speaking out of some bizarro-world perspective where black is white, freedom is slavery, and there's no difference between fantasy and reality. And it looks like he doesn't like that fact being pointed out to him.

I know I was addressing the psychological aspect, which is not logic or epistemology, etc...(though obviously those two and other philosophical understandings play their part in the psyche formation).  When I say psychological what I mean is:  'the way an individual thinks'.  That's why I brought up propaganda which targets the psyche of individuals to the point that logic can be blinded.  How deeply penetrating propaganda gets into the psyche of an individual would be an interesting study, but that is beyond the scope of my insight.

Marko:

It is good that you admit that you are speaking not from a libertarian perspective

But I am speaking from a libertarian perspective, because I am a libertarian and nothing I have written is inconsistent with libertarianism.

Don't tell me you digital tough guys can't stand a conversation questioning your chosen means in relation to your ends?  I thought you guys could incinerate cities with a few button clicks?  Only tough with your joystick in your hands?   

Marko:

but from some type of pacifist perspective.

This is the sort of strawman rubbish I expect from statists, not from you.  The opposite of murder and property destruction is not pacifism.

liberty student:

This is the sort of strawman rubbish I expect from statists, not from you.  The opposite of murder and property destruction is not pacifism.

You don't really get to say this.

As far as I saw you did not discriminate, but came out against virtual violence in general, not specifically against virtual murder and destruction of property.

The biggest part of virtual violence taking place in games consists of violence between willing participants. All PvP gaming is of this type. Also prevalent type of virtual violence is defensive or retaliatory violence. Most violent single player games put the player in position of thwarting some evil scheme or a giant invasion by the hordes of the undead and the legions of hell. The smallest part of violence in games consists of murder or destruction of property by player. If I recall your initial post referenced WoW where the violence does not take the form of murder, but of deadly duels.

But frankly we do not even need to go there. It is clear you commit a mistake even much before this. Violent games do not simulate violence. Violent games simulate acts. Acts which are in real life violent, but which are in a game violence-free.

These games are by and large played because (in a game, as in real-life) such acts provide one with a thrill. Not a thrill of inflicting violence, but a thrill of contest and of danger. Like it or not a shootout is a form of contest. While it is a contest few would participate merely for sport in real life - it being violent and life threatening. In a game environment, where the mechanics of the act are preserved but separated from the violence of it, it becomes a great form of sport. A contest of skill, no different from motor racing.

Now there are also games where the thrill derives from inflicting virtual violence. For example gone postal and rape games. Here we can call up our moral indignation, but this constitutes a small specialized niche of gaming.

Also I would personally advise against being too morally indignant even in these cases lest it be revealed that the appalled party actually loves blowing stuff up in GTA, which after all is different from the aforementioned reprehensible gaming in degree only.

liberty student:

 

But I am speaking from a libertarian perspective, because I am a libertarian and nothing I have written is inconsistent with libertarianism.

It is not inconsistent with libertarianism, but neither is it supported by it. You have said as much yourself, for example with the "all the more power to you remark". So you recognize that your conclusion is not the only possible one for a libertarian.

liberty student:

 

Don't tell me you digital tough guys can't stand a conversation questioning your chosen means in relation to your ends?  I thought you guys could incinerate cities with a few button clicks?  Only tough with your joystick in your hands?   

I wouldn't know about a tough guy. I usually play the sneaky backstabbing type.

 

Marko:

It is not inconsistent with libertarianism, but neither it is supported by it.

Libertarianism is based on a conception of negative, not positive liberty.  Libertarianism is not defined by what it supports, but what it does not support.

Marko:

You have said as much yourself, for example with the "all the more power to you remark".

That had to do with my being a subjective ethicist, and acknowledging that everyone draws their own subjective rationales for ethics.

Marko:

So you recognize that your conclusion is not the only possible one for a libertarian.

I don't believe I have ever claimed otherwise on this forum.  As long as the core component (opposition to aggression) of what libertarianism is met then all sorts of ethical standards can be built around that.  Even voluntary socialism, voluntary slavery.

Marko:

I wouldn't know about a tough guy. I usually play the sneaky backstabbing type.

Yeah, I figured that out.  

 

liberty student:

But I am speaking from a libertarian perspective

No, you're speaking from a pacifist perspective. Remember: there's nothing wrong with violence per se for libertarians.

Don't tell me that you have gone all tosswad Marxist on us.

And I know why you're not responding to me: you know that you're wrong.

Let's try and keep the discussion here constructive.

Liberty, I think the problem here is that your position isn't strictly a libertarian position, even if it isn't inconsistent with libertarian philosophy.

I am reminded of the thread a few months back regarding left-libertarians. Questions of aesthetics, generosity, or other values that are not strictly related to law and the use of violence cannot be answered within the libertarian framework, as libertarianism is a strictly political philosophy (the role of violence and the state).

This does not mean that a libertarian cannot have positions regarding these things. Left-libertarians can denounce racism, but such a stance, while relevant as a human being, is irrelevant to libertarianism.

So you are saying that you dislike violent video games. Many people here obviously enjoy them. There is no disagreement so long as the discussion stays within the confines of simple preference.

This does not mean that a libertarian cannot have positions regarding these things. Left-libertarians can denounce racism, but such a stance, while relevant as a human being, is irrelevant to libertarianism.

lol.

liberty student:

bloomj31:

Now wait a minute, I want to play video games where I kill people and blow things up.

Based on your posts, you have sociopathic tendencies.

Based on your assumptions, watching 90 percent of movies make you a sociopath. Most movies are much crueler then video games, and you can easily enjoy it for what it is, be sane, and hate coercion. Just watch any action movie, or crime movie. It is simply art.

You can have any opinion on not like watching violence, but associating to sociopathic tendencies is an exaggeration of its effects. Also, I think much of the entertainment or humor is on the fact that it's not real. 

^Lol indeed, I see racism as inconsistent with libertarianism. Other personal ethics, like religion for example may or may not be.

Something tells me LS is not much of a movie watcher either.

I am reminded of the thread a few months back regarding left-libertarians.

Well, LS seems to have made a point that can be safely regarded as related to 'thick libertarianism' - odd because he used to dislike left/thick libertarianism a lot.

 

filc:

Something tells me LS is not much of a movie watcher either.

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.

filc:

Something tells me LS is not much of a movie watcher either.

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.

Libertyandlife:

Based on your assumptions, watching 90 percent of movies make you a sociopath.

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).

Libertyandlife:

You can have any opinion on not like watching violence, but associating to sociopathic tendencies is an exaggeration of its effects.

Indeed.  Which is why I don't know why you claim I did associate them.

Libertyandlife:

Lol indeed, I see racism as inconsistent with libertarianism.

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. 

zefreak:

Liberty, I think the problem here is that your position isn't strictly a libertarian position, even if it isn't inconsistent with libertarian philosophy.

Right.  And that seems to be confusing some people.

zefreak:

So you are saying that you dislike violent video games. Many people here obviously enjoy them. There is no disagreement so long as the discussion stays within the confines of simple preference.

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.

Juan:

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 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.

liberty student:

zefreak:

Liberty, I think the problem here is that your position isn't strictly a libertarian position, even if it isn't inconsistent with libertarian philosophy.

Right.  And that seems to be confusing some people.

zefreak:

So you are saying that you dislike violent video games. Many people here obviously enjoy them. There is no disagreement so long as the discussion stays within the confines of simple preference.

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).

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.

kiba:

liberty student:

zefreak:

Liberty, I think the problem here is that your position isn't strictly a libertarian position, even if it isn't inconsistent with libertarian philosophy.

Right.  And that seems to be confusing some people.

zefreak:

So you are saying that you dislike violent video games. Many people here obviously enjoy them. There is no disagreement so long as the discussion stays within the confines of simple preference.

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).

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. 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?

Juan:

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.

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.

liberty student:

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.

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.

ladyattis:

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).

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:

1. Giant colonies get raped by a few well-fed ghoulies.

2. Your average mute, with little to no combat skills, doesn't break a sweat disposing of ghoul army with his signatory gardening tool.

3. 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.

3. 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.

4. The final boss is a giant telepathic commander of the ghoul army. It doesn't get out much, and goes down like newborn kitten.

5. 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.

Marko:

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.

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.

Marko:

There is no cultural libertarianism. There is no way to tell a libertarian from a non-libertarian in a statist world.

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.

Marko:

You are as much of a slave as the rest of us.

Ah yes, the slave refrain.  You can't climb out, we're all stuck here.

Marko:

Not playing games and not liking fiction does not mean anything.

And I would argue then, that playing games and liking fiction doesn't mean anything.  So the topic is meaningless.

Marko:

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.

If you wait for an opportunity to not be a slave, you will be a slave a long time.  We make our luck.

Marko:

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.

See my list above of slaves who didn't accept that an opportunity had to be given to them.

Capital Pumper:

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.

I don't think it's a stretch, sure.

Capital Pumper:

Juan:

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.

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.

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!

 

liberty student:

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.

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...)

Marko:

It is a symbiotic relationship. State propaganda makes more people into pro-military, nationalist/patriot zombies than would otherwise be the case. ... You do have to admit Tom Clancy is a pro-military, nationalist/patriot author and that his popularity benefits the military and the foreign policy establishment. As do games like Ghost Recon 1.

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. 

bloomj31:

LS and FIl, I challenge you both to go out and buy MW2 and just play for a couple of weeks.  As abhorrent as violence is to you both, I can almost guarantee you will have fun.  It's a great game and it's just great fun.  I think in your two weeks of playtime, you'll find out why there's a market for violent games and that it's got nothing to do with the military brainwashing people.

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?

Laughing Man:

There is a beauty in emotion. I think rational and logic is a highly desirable state but emotions are an important part also. I mean, how does a human being flourish if happiness cannot be felt?

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?

Saan:

Yes, these games condition one to murder. It is called indoctrination.  If you are use to death already, it is much easier to instill the kill or be killed mentality. They can be turned to positive uses, but that is up to the individual.

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...

z1235:

You are deluding yourself if you think that you can cleanly extricate yourself from your own actions, no matter how fictional you may think they are. Your actions affect/define you as much as you affect/initiate them.  You become/are what you do. The question is who/what do you want to be and why do you do what you do? You constantly make choices about who to hang out with, what to do, what to read, and how to "spend" your scarce time in this world. These choices, over time, define who you become.

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.

filc:

If we took this argument to its logical conclusion in what way would we have to live in order to avoid violence of all types in every facet of our lives. Living in a box sucks! Smile

Can you clarify why you think this is negative?  This sounds like an ideal to me.

liberty student:

I struggle with the issue of following the state's decrees every day, knowing full well that they are illegitimate and unjust.

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.

liberty student:

I love Stargate, and can now barely watch it with the blatant militarism and pro-state stuff in it.  Despite the great sci-fi backdrop, the show is basically a mockery of what I would hope exploration would be.

Ditto again.  I loved Stargate and wish I could enjoy it as I once did!

liberty student:

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.

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.

L.C.:

I am surprised to find my instincts are so out of sync with the majority of people on this thread.

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.

L.C.:

I have not been able to stop thinking about this since I learned about the NAP. 

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.