FA+
Shop
Why do people take joy in wanton violence in enterainment?
11 years ago
Part 1:
Yesterday, I was watching some videos by the user Edplus777, whose channel is at https://www.youtube.com/user/EDplus777 . He had a series of videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?li.....SA_Qf3chi8Olfa called "One Day with Ponies", which are 14 videos, 12 of which are innocuous enough that you could show them to your Grandmother and give her a smile. However, One Day with Zecora skirts the boundaries of good taste, and One Day with Pinkamena, the last of the videos, is just a video of wanton violence.
First of all, this exactly what I was referring to in my previous post when I referred to people trying to put adult themes into My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic to remove the elements that make watching the show a transgressive act for an adult male. But more importantly, to step back a moment, someone took a good deal of time and effort to make that video. So the question I'm more interested in, more generally, is why would a person, really anyone in a civilized country in this day and age, make a video entirely of gory, wanton, unjustified violence?
The issue of violence today is a complex issue that can't really be dealt with too briefly. So what I first want to focus on in particular is simply how people do or do not enjoy violence, and the three kinds of categories people typically fall into.
The Kindhearted:
My Mom has two friends, Jan and Marty, who on separate occasions made nearly identical statements: That they do not like any movies with violence or unhappy endings. The astute reader will note that such a description precludes the enjoyment of nearly every movie ever made, except for certain musicals and Christmas stories. More generally, such people are the kinds of people who balk at the very concept of violence in entertainment and try to avoid it at all costs. Notably, most, but not all of such people are female. Some enjoyment, at least to a minor degree, of violence is expected of men, and such prissiness as I just described is almost the very definition of femininity. Such people are common in this day and age, to say nothing of the First World nations and this country in specific. And the state of the world is such that such people can not only exist but thrive. The reason they can exist and thrive is because in day to day life, life in America is peaceful to a degree people often don't give credit. There was a very interesting part in the fan fiction Anthropology where Lyra is surprised that several weeks have passed in the human world without some dangerous event occurring. In My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, where ponies balk at the very concept of violence, it is nonetheless a very dangerous world to live in. In the span of a few years, several world-ending threats have appeared, and many minor threats appeared that either threatened to destroy Ponyville or in actuality caused property damage. I live near Rochester, New York, a city with an urban population of over 700,000 people, with a listing of 2,000 violent crimes per year. That's no paradise, to be sure, but that's still extremely low statistically. I personally have not physically hit or been hit by a person since around 2005 or so. Point being, also as Lyra implies in the story, we live in a near-paradise, in a land of low violence and technological wonders. This isn't quite the San Angeles utopia of the movie Demolition Man, where years go by without a single person dying unnaturally, but this is still a society that is extremely safe to a degree perhaps never seen in the history of the world, and it is an environment where those that balk at any mention of violence at all, even in entertainment, can certainly fit in.
Those that enjoy righteous, legitimate violence:
There's no really succinct way I can characterize the kind of group I'm part of. I have not personally engaging in any violence at all in years, excepting playing airsoft, which is a sport where people are specifically given permission to shoot at and cause extremely minor pain to other people, but only in specific times and places. But I enjoy violent entertainment, up to a point. When I was playing the PC game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, I found precisely where that point was. In the mission Back on the Grid, there's a part where you have to kill a guard, and can do so by getting close and slitting his throat. That part is at http://youtu.be/8PHuu96h_As?t=5m39s
That is right where my limit on enjoyment of violence is, but why there? I already murdered plenty of people in the game from afar with bullets, and watched Price stab a guy a few minutes before. And the guy that I killed there is no more real than anyone else in the game. However, it's like right then, right there, that little part of the game passed the threshold of what I consider acceptable violence, and enjoyment of the violence briefly transitioned to revulsion. And then, just as quickly as it came, the feeling passes, and I have to think, considering it now, it was no accident that the game designers designed the very next part to be a sniper section, so that the player could again have some distance from the computer-generated blood and again see the enemies as targets rather than the all too real illusion the game just created that I was physically killing a living, breathing person.
And I must admit that it is an arbitrary distinction. I find it strange to think that in the Pinkamena video, her cutting off a piece of a pony filled me with disgust and revulsion, whereas in the move Rambo where John Rambo kills the leader of the Myanmar army group by shoving a machete through his torso and slicing him open, I all but clapped and cheered watching that in the theater. So, it would be logical with that in mind that wanton violence is specifically what I dislike. After all, that would explain why I enjoyed the justified violence in the novel The Bear and the Dragon, and most of the violence in Call of Duty games. But that doesn't quite stand up, for two reasons. First, if that was the case, why did I also enjoy watching A Fistful of Explosions, the YouTube parody at http://youtu.be/EnPIPOaRUFg of the most violent parts of Star Trek: The Next Generation spliced together? That was certainly wanton violence, similar to the All Your Base Star Wars parody at http://youtu.be/JQVC9Bd6X4w which had a similar theme. However, both videos would count as "parody", in that the intent of the violence is in service of a running joke, and also it's important to note that neither videos are particularly bloody. They show plenty of instances of people being hurt or dying, but neither strays into the territory of Back on the Grid in terms of blood and injury. Second, if I draw the line at "justified violence", why do I enjoy playing so many games as the "bad guys"? Examples of this are many - the Soviets in Command and Conquer: Red Alert and Red Alert 2, the Brotherhood of Nod in Command and Conquer: Tiberium Sun and Command and Conquer 3, the Cult of Storms in Age of Mythology, the Empire in Star Wars: Force Command, and the Spartans of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri all come to mind as examples of times in video games where I had more fun playing as the bad guys than their good guy counterparts. And the reason for that could really only boil down to two reasons: Either I ideologically found more in common with those factions, or the ideology was irrelevant, and I enjoyed the freer play styles. To explain, those bad guys I mentioned share one thing in common - the goal of world domination. I must admit that despite being a citizen of a democratic country, the desire for world domination and one world government runs strong in me. More than anything, actually, I long for a world united by one and only one language, where anyone in the world can speak to anyone else in the world without needing translation. Those "bad guys" have other tenets of their ideology that I don't agree with (particularly the Soviets of the Command and Conquer series as I'm resolutely anti-Communist) but I must admit that the "bad guy" tenet of world domination has appeal to me. Alternatively, the ideology might have been irrelevant to me in those situations. What all those examples I referred to also shared was a freer play style. A great example of that are that the Soviets in Command and Conquer: Red Alert 2 have no qualms about strapping explosives to a conscript and sending him against a group of enemies, whereas the Allies from the same game have nothing that shows such a reckless disregard for human life, and also have nothing quite as useful. The other examples had similar instances where I as a player was given a freer hand to do unconventional things to win missions. However, interestingly, that enjoyment of the "bad guys" did not extend to the GLA of Command and Conquer: Generals, for almost exactly the same reasons that One Day with Pinkamena did not give me enjoyment. There was one mission in which you as a GLA commander have to shoot down airplanes carrying disaster aid, and murder unarmed villagers before they can collect airdrops. That crossed the line to "wanton violence" in my mind, and made the GLA truly a despicable, evil faction to play as, and I ended up getting more enjoyment killing them as the Chinese and Americans. As a side note, it probably also didn't help that their ideology directly conflicted with mine, as I am an atheist, and a Muslim is about as far away from me ideologically as another human being can go.
So, point being, I enjoy violence in entertainment, but I draw a line at such violence, largely at two points: First, the point that violence becomes "too real" and creates an uncomfortable closeness to the violence, and second, violence that I cannot justify at all.
The bloodthirsty:
I thought this part would be more difficult to right about, but after consideration in the previous section, it now makes sense to me why One Day with Pinkamena caused such revulsion in me: it exactly fit the description that I just gave of violence that is unjustifiable and too real. However, I now must move on to the more difficult question: if I do not find enjoyment in realistic, unjustifiable violence, why would anyone in the world gain enjoyment in that?
Well, two things that come to mind first.
First, my mind automatically goes to team sports whenever I think of something that a lot of people find enjoyment in that I have never and perhaps never will find enjoyment in. Hockey, football, baseball, and soccer in particular are things that millions, perhaps even billions of people in the world find great enjoyment in watching and participating in, but which in me only bring up feelings ranging from mild indifference to acrid hate. On the other end of the spectrum, I mentioned in my previous entries the things I take great enjoyment of but which many people will never in their entire lives take any pleasure in. I specifically mentioned Anthropology and Knotcast in my previous post, but here I'm thinking of PC games in general as well. Also of note are the kindhearted people I mentioned in the beginning of this post who wouldn't even enjoy The Lion King of all things because there is too much violence, death, and sadness in the movie. My point is, even in a world populated entirely by humans, the things that do and do not give me enjoyment can be vastly dissimilar those that give enjoyment to other people in the world, to the point that a football game that would cause excited elation in one person would likely cause angry revulsion in me.
Second, I must consider that such enjoyment is extremely common in the world. How else could you explain the popularity of the horror genre? And again, I make a divide there. I very much enjoyed watching Zach Snyder's Dawn of the Dead, for the reasons already stated (particularly how the violence was justified, despite being particularly realistic), whereas the last horror movie to my memory that I saw in a theater was The House of Wax, which when I watched brought up terrible feelings of revulsion, helplessness, and dissatisfaction and reminded me why I hated horror movies in general.
Maybe it is tangential to the question at hand, but I notice that a common hallmark of a horror movie is a sad ending. I don't get it, I really don't. Why is it that horror fans hate happy endings? I was elated when reading the happy endings of Anthropology and The Bear and the Dragon, just as quite frankly some of my fondest childhood memories are the happy endings of video games, movies, and TV shows, particularly the endings of Power Rangers in Space, Army Men II, and the Allied ending of Command and Conquer: Red Alert II. Actually, it's weird to think that My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic of all places toys with such disappointing endings in some episodes. "Bats!" ends with Fluttershy still having a sharp bat tooth, and "Castle Mane-ia" ends with a spooky shadow in the distance. What, is it supposed to be sequel bait? That certainly makes no sense in those ones, because with how rarely one episode ties to another in MLP, it's likely those stinger-like endings will be forever tied to just those episodes. With that in mind, I can only explain them as attempts to temper a happy ending of those particular episodes. But why? Why must a horror movie not end with the threat being completely eliminated? After all, Star Wars: Episode 4 ended with a happy ending, and that didn't stop more movies from being made. To a horror movie fan, would A New Hope have been a better movie if it ended with Darth Vader blowing up Like Skywalker's X-Wing and Yavin IV exploding? Maybe it's getting too late at night, or the topic of "happy" and "sad" endings being too tangential to the issue at hand, but I have no answer for that question right now.
So, I'll move on to the last part: the violence itself. Now, offhand I can only guess that the enjoyment people take from the violence of horror movies is just pleasure in justified violence being taken to the extreme and divorced from the justification. After all, there is a certain logic one could see in the assumption that, if John Rambo slicing open an evil Army officer is something to be enjoyed, perhaps Jason stabbing a defenseless teenager, or Pinkamena cutting up another pony, is also something meant to be enjoyed. The logic of that assumption is difficult for me personally to understand, but perhaps if I do not understand the joy people take in team sports, I also cannot understand the joy people take in horror movies. That feels like giving up, but perhaps I should clarify what I mean by "understand." If I mean "understand" as in "the ability to feel the same way as another person", then the attempt is doomed to fail from the start. I wouldn't be able to feel the way another person feels for the thing at hand, or else I wouldn't be attempting to understand it in the first place. But if I mean "understand" as in "comprehend the logic of the feeling, even if I cannot feel that feeling myself," that is more up my alley, and that's more doable. But, it's almost 1:00 AM right now, and though I've used this entry to come to an understanding of why I personally do not enjoy such wanton violence as I see in One Day with Pinkamena and other horror-themed videos, an attempt to comprehend the logic in why a person would feel such pleasure escapes me for the time being.
Part 2:
Alright, it is morning now, and I've had some more time to consider the issue.
First of all, the fear aspect of a horror movie can't be glossed over. When I was thinking about the kinds of emotions a person typically experiences watching a horror movie - anticipation, dread, fear, helplessness, and eventual relief, I realized that those emotions are the same emotions a person typically feels on a roller coaster. The topic of fear as entertainment was examined in the Star Trek Voyager episode "The Thaw". The entire clip is at http://youtu.be/RvsXci5qsZ8?t=5m58s but when Janeway asks why is it that people enjoy entertainment that causes fear, The Doctor responds "Fear can provide pleasure. To seek fear is to seek the boundaries of one’s' sensory experience." Such a sentiment is somewhat foreign to me, but far less foreign than the original topic at hand of love of wanton violence. I personally do not enjoy fear in general, but I did enjoy the original X-COM game, which had a degree of fear in it, somewhat similar to a horror movie. In that game, my commandos would assault an alien landing zone, and I would have to deal with the fear of not knowing where the enemy is and knowing that an enemy could pop out of the edge of my soldiers' perception and kill them. I physically jumped in my seat a few times while playing that. But that fear-based game is very different from the concept of a horror game or horror movie. After all, in such a case my soldiers were well-armed, the aliens were not invincible, and each encounter could end three ways - all aliens dead, all soldiers dead, or surviving soldiers retreating to the landing craft. So, it didn't have quite the same feeling of helpless dread as a roller coaster or horror movie generates. Also, the violence was justified and not excessive. When it comes to movies, I've also enjoyed some near-horror movies - that is, movies with some elements of a horror movie without actually being a horror movie. Eight Legged Freaks and Dawn of the Dead had masses of creatures with no compunction about attacking large groups of people. The monsters in Pacific Rim inspired the same feeling of helpless dread as a horror movie villain. But no one would consider Pacific Rim a horror movie. So, the next thing to do is to define what is precisely meant by a 'horror movie'. To the best of my estimation, a horror movie could be defined as 'a movie in which a powerful entity causes great threat to individual people, resists all attempts at its destruction, and causes pain and death in an especially bloody, violent way.' Such a description would include such diverse movies as Friday the 13th, The Grudge, Final Destination, and House of Wax. But that last part is interesting: Why must the method of destruction be especially bloody?
To answer that, I came up with a thought experiment. Take the movie Friday the 13th, and replace Jason's trademark machete with a phaser set on high. So, instead of having him kill people in a relatively slow, bloody method, whenever he is close to someone he wants to kill, he will just point his phaser at them, and they disappear in a flash of light. Now, thinking on that, I would say that many people would consider that ruining the movie. But why? All the other elements of horror would still be there. Jason would still be a powerful entity that caused great threat to individual people and resists attempts at his destruction. But somehow, the concept that death in horror movies must be bloody, or in the case of mummy movies at the very least include slow and painful death, is so tied to the idea of a horror movie that without it, it wouldn't be a horror movie anymore. And for whatever reason, people enjoy horror movies. So then, the question becomes, do they enjoy horror movies despite their bloody nature, or because of it?
There's certainly an argument to be made on both sides. Perhaps people enjoy horror movies despite their bloody nature, and that ultra-violence is just in service of the increase of the fear that people take pleasure in. After all, what's scarier? A lumbering undead zombie that will slice you up and make you die in slow agony, or an undead zombie with a phaser that will instantly and painlessly annihilate you if he sees you? If such a part of the horror movie is supposed to be unpleasant to people, that would create a strange paradox where it would suit the movie for such scenes to be as long, painful, and unpleasant as possible to maximize the pleasant fear and excitement people find in the movie, while also making such scenes as short and painless as possible to reduce the unpleasantness of the scenes themselves. That s a confusing concept and I'm not sure it's true, but there is a degree of logic in that line of reasoning.
The other line of thinking is a bit more disturbing, that people enjoy the bloody nature of horror movies because of their bloody nature. That could be further split into two other possibilities - that some people either do not feel revulsion at all when watching bloody, painful death, or feel the revulsion but have turned it into something pleasant. The former possibility is confusing. Why would a person not feel revulsion at all when watching such things? To answer that question, I turn back to the scene in Rambo where Rambo slices open the Army officer. Now, what I don't quite understand is whether I felt glee at watching that because the justice of the act overwhelmed the revulsion I felt, or because I didn't feel revulsion at all. Similarly, years back I watched video from a slaughterhouse. I did feel revulsion, to be sure, but tempered that with the knowledge that it was not people, but animals that were being killed, and that the knowledge that such things happen has to be reconciled with my distaste for wanton violence for me to remain an omnivore. This path of reasoning seems to have petered out entirely, and I'm really not sure what reason a person would have for not feeling revulsion at all when watching bloody, painful deaths, so I'll just move on to the other possibility, which I've put a lot of thought into: that people do feel revulsion at such things, but some people temper it to a pleasant feeling.
There is certainly plenty of evidence that the very concepts of pleasure and pain are extremely variable from person to person. I remember reading an article on Yahoo! News about a person who cut sugar out of their diet almost completely, and afterward didn't like sugar. It disturbed me, because first it described a person who did not find pleasure in something I take great pleasure in, and second, it belied a difficulty in describing what it means to be human and alive. One would think it would be impossible for the generalization of "everyone loves sugar" to be incorrect, but there, right on the page, was a description of someone that was an exception to that generalization. Similarly, if you look on Fur Affinity, you will see images made by people who have combined all manner of negative emotions and sensations with sex - fear, pain, disgust, helplessness, restriction, and the like - and turned it into something they find pleasant. Lastly, just as someone people have turned the pleasant sensation of sweetness into something they avoid, it has often boggled my mind why people like bitter things, like black coffee. Cicero once wrote “But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?” If he were alive today and available for comment, I would like to ask him “When the sensation of bitterness is so unpleasant, what reason does anyone in the world have to seek out pain with no resulting pleasure?” And further, when generalizations that would seem to be universal, such as "everyone loves sugar", "no one likes bitter drinks", or "no one likes being kicked repeatedly in the balls" are actually not universal, what hope does the world have for a cosmopolitan understanding and for universal empathy?
So, the only conclusion I can draw at present is that, if the bloody nature of horror movies is integral to their enjoyment, and if that bloody nature actually does cause the emotion of revulsion in the people that watch them, those same people that feel revulsion have somehow turned the negative emotion of revulsion into a positive emotion, in the same way a person can turn the negative sensation of bitterness into something they seek out.
It is not a satisfying conclusion to make, because it begs the question of how in the world, even if those assumptions are true, a person can enjoy negative emotions and sensations, and only leaves more questions instead of a solid answer to the original question of why a person would make a video entirely of gory, wanton, unjustified violence.
Part 3:
After finishing the last section, I went downstairs for lunch, and as luck would have it, my Dad happened to come home for his lunch break at that same time. Now, while my Mom is a kindhearted woman, she shows neither desire nor ability for deep conversation, whereas my Dad excels in discussing complex topics. So, after writing to a standstill, I got some second opinions to revitalize the discussion.
First of all, Dad took exception at my narrow definition of a horror movie. He said that he would define a horror movie simply as any movie that is intended to cause fear in the audience. I took exception to that general definition, as that would include the movie Independence Day, and I think it's silly to have a definition of a horror movie that includes both Independence Day and Friday the 13th. He did have a good point though that the movie Aliens might be considered a horror movie, as there are parts of that movie that are fear-inducing. I argued Aliens doesn't quite fit the definition because of how in that movie, the space marines have guns and the aliens aren't invulnerable, so, that Aliens would fall more into the near-horror that X-COM falls into. Second, Dad asserted that people find fear fun, and don't enjoy revulsion in and of itself generally, but more because they cause the pleasant feeling of fear in horror movies. However, he tempered that with two other statements. First, that part of the reason people do things like drink coffee and watch horror movies is to feel new sensations. Now, I countered that, for example, trying a new flavor of ice cream would also be a new sensation, and that would be a new pleasant sensation, but in retrospect I can see what he meant by that, and that yes, new sensations can in themselves be interesting, even if they are not pleasant new sensations, as evidenced by the part of Star Trek: Generations where Data tries a gross drink for the first time, declares in a loud voice that he hates it, and immediately asks for another simply because the feeling of disgust is so novel he wants to try it again. Second, he asserted that the feeling of revulsion is a feeling that often passes, with a deer hunter as his example. If anyone were to watch a person gutting a deer for the first time, they would feel absolutely revolted, despite that being roughly what butchers do all day. I believe the point he was making was that after initial revulsion is felt, it will often go away if a person continues to do whatever made them feel revolted in the first place.
With fresh blood to revitalize the topic, I think I can now follow it to its logical conclusion. First of all, I now have no qualms about making the universal statement that sensations, specifically, are universal. Just the same as a single-celled organism goes towards food and away from danger, any human will feel the same general sensations - hunger, thirst, fear, disgust, sweetness, bitterness, arousal, pain, and pleasure, to name a few. To be more clear, by that I mean that there is no human that, for example, does not feel the sensation of sweetness when they put sugar on their tongue, excepting those with something physically wrong with them so they cannot feel that sensation. Those people I mentioned earlier, the ones that like coffee, hate sugar, and enjoy being kicked repeatedly in the balls became that way through Behavioralism, pure and simple. One way or another, their reactions to those stimuli became conditioned responses, which explains why, though everyone in the world feels the same sensations, the reactions people have to those sensations are so varied. So, with that in mind, the question becomes why people feel the need to override their natural responses to stimuli, and though the individual reasons are varied, there is one overriding reason that huge numbers of people have, and one reason that directly ties to this topic: overriding the natural responses a person has to stimuli is a sign of great self control and maturity.
Take Fluttershy as an example, the very avatar of the concept of kindness. She is loved by all, but one thing that no one in the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic feels is admiration for her. Just watch this video at http://youtu.be/anyK_DzJmgI where Discord points out the general feelings most people have towards the kindhearted: that they're weak and helpless, and full of obvious flaws. Now, take John Rambo as a counter example. I was going to say he is the opposite of Fluttershy, but that's not quite right. John Rambo has a kind and tender streak in him, but he is more the avatar of manly maturity. He ignores pain and fear, and goes out to cause great violence on those that wish to cause harm to the helpless. Edplus777, in making One Day with Pinkamena, is trying to show that he has the same manliness and maturity as John Rambo, and that he can wade through violence and stay cool through it. Because of that, I have to imagine that Edplus777, as a person bloodthirsty for violent entertainment, feels the same way towards someone more into moderate entertainment as I feel towards the kindhearted: that they are pussies. He would probably think that by feeling revulsion from wanton destruction and feeling a negative, visceral reaction to it, that those people lack the coolness and self-control that he does, in the same way that I feel that by Mom's friends Jan and Marty shunning all forms of violence entirely that they lack the coolness and self-control that I do.
So, it all boils down to one logical answer to my original question: Edplus777 made a video entirely of gory, wanton, unjustified violence to shout to the world that he is neither a baby nor a pussy. He wanted to show that though he just made a bunch of kindhearted videos, that he is a mature adult and can stomach huge amounts of violence without being upset about it. And, as someone who cares about what people think of me, but in general refuses to let it sway me, that notion strikes me as...strangely childish, I must say, except also strangely reasonable. By childish, imagine this: Imagine that Edplus777 had stopped his Day in the Life videos before the Zecora and Pinkamena videos. Then, anyone seeing his channel and watching his videos would think Edplus777 as a kindhearted man, and might subject him to the same kind of ridicule that Discord heaped on Fluttershy. But isn't refusal to bend in the face of ridicule its own form of maturity and courage? Perhaps people like Mom's friend Marty have their own form of courage, in that despite some people thinking them weak and immature because they don't like unpleasant things, they don't give in to pressure and start overriding their sensations like other people do. With that view in mind, the Zecora and Pinkamena videos show a kind of surrender on Edplus777's part, and it would have actually showed more courage on his part if he had never made them at all. On the other hand, such a sentiment as Edplus777 had that lead to the video's creation is certainly reasonable to me, and my mind immediately goes to the topic of coffee and alcohol when I think of the unpleasant things that adults do partially to show that they're adults. I hate coffee and alcohol and avoid them completely, and will likely never in my entire life enjoy any coffee or alcoholic beverage. Heck, I can't even stand coffee ice cream. And while I haven't had anyone come right out and call me a baby or a pussy for such a view, I feel it, and can imagine people thinking it. Particularly, one hurtful thing my brother Adam said to me has repeated in my head many times, and while it's not the only reason I don't like him, it's certainly a part of it: he called me a Mormon. I don't remember the physical context, but he was saying that since I don't smoke, don't drink, and do not like alcohol, that I might as well convert to Mormonism. And I hate him for that. I am an atheist, and consider Mormonism to be a cult and to have beliefs directly in conflict to the values I place on truth, science, and lack of delusion. For me of all people to be called a Mormon is one of the most severe insults I can think of, perhaps second only to being called retarded. But related to the topic at hand, the subtext of the joking insult was clear - Adam was calling me prissy, he was calling me a pussy, and he was calling me a baby. Obviously, the great Adam, he who drank beer when he was 12, who moved out of state for his college and got out of the house as soon as possible after he graduated is the very avatar of manliness and self-control, and to him I'm just a prissy little pussy who won't even stomach a near-beer. It's that kind of sentiment that people like me and Edplus777 have to fight against. And similar to how by making One Day with Pinkamena he headed off any possible criticism that he is childish, if I were to share a beer with Adam that would probably also head off at least that line of criticism he could have about me being childish.
And so, I don't agree with Edplus777. I think that making One Day with Pinkamena showed an unhealthy glorification for violence, and he degraded himself by making it rather than sticking to the kindhearted videos that could have caused him great criticism. But I also understand the impulse behind it now, and can imagine that the conflict he felt over how people perceived him is similar to the conflict I feel over how people perceive me, particularly how the bloodthirsty would consider my definition of too much violence to show childishness and arrested development, and how the kindhearted would think that my enjoyment of what I would consider moderate violence to show an unhealthy glorification of violence.
Yesterday, I was watching some videos by the user Edplus777, whose channel is at https://www.youtube.com/user/EDplus777 . He had a series of videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?li.....SA_Qf3chi8Olfa called "One Day with Ponies", which are 14 videos, 12 of which are innocuous enough that you could show them to your Grandmother and give her a smile. However, One Day with Zecora skirts the boundaries of good taste, and One Day with Pinkamena, the last of the videos, is just a video of wanton violence.
First of all, this exactly what I was referring to in my previous post when I referred to people trying to put adult themes into My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic to remove the elements that make watching the show a transgressive act for an adult male. But more importantly, to step back a moment, someone took a good deal of time and effort to make that video. So the question I'm more interested in, more generally, is why would a person, really anyone in a civilized country in this day and age, make a video entirely of gory, wanton, unjustified violence?
The issue of violence today is a complex issue that can't really be dealt with too briefly. So what I first want to focus on in particular is simply how people do or do not enjoy violence, and the three kinds of categories people typically fall into.
The Kindhearted:
My Mom has two friends, Jan and Marty, who on separate occasions made nearly identical statements: That they do not like any movies with violence or unhappy endings. The astute reader will note that such a description precludes the enjoyment of nearly every movie ever made, except for certain musicals and Christmas stories. More generally, such people are the kinds of people who balk at the very concept of violence in entertainment and try to avoid it at all costs. Notably, most, but not all of such people are female. Some enjoyment, at least to a minor degree, of violence is expected of men, and such prissiness as I just described is almost the very definition of femininity. Such people are common in this day and age, to say nothing of the First World nations and this country in specific. And the state of the world is such that such people can not only exist but thrive. The reason they can exist and thrive is because in day to day life, life in America is peaceful to a degree people often don't give credit. There was a very interesting part in the fan fiction Anthropology where Lyra is surprised that several weeks have passed in the human world without some dangerous event occurring. In My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, where ponies balk at the very concept of violence, it is nonetheless a very dangerous world to live in. In the span of a few years, several world-ending threats have appeared, and many minor threats appeared that either threatened to destroy Ponyville or in actuality caused property damage. I live near Rochester, New York, a city with an urban population of over 700,000 people, with a listing of 2,000 violent crimes per year. That's no paradise, to be sure, but that's still extremely low statistically. I personally have not physically hit or been hit by a person since around 2005 or so. Point being, also as Lyra implies in the story, we live in a near-paradise, in a land of low violence and technological wonders. This isn't quite the San Angeles utopia of the movie Demolition Man, where years go by without a single person dying unnaturally, but this is still a society that is extremely safe to a degree perhaps never seen in the history of the world, and it is an environment where those that balk at any mention of violence at all, even in entertainment, can certainly fit in.
Those that enjoy righteous, legitimate violence:
There's no really succinct way I can characterize the kind of group I'm part of. I have not personally engaging in any violence at all in years, excepting playing airsoft, which is a sport where people are specifically given permission to shoot at and cause extremely minor pain to other people, but only in specific times and places. But I enjoy violent entertainment, up to a point. When I was playing the PC game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, I found precisely where that point was. In the mission Back on the Grid, there's a part where you have to kill a guard, and can do so by getting close and slitting his throat. That part is at http://youtu.be/8PHuu96h_As?t=5m39s
That is right where my limit on enjoyment of violence is, but why there? I already murdered plenty of people in the game from afar with bullets, and watched Price stab a guy a few minutes before. And the guy that I killed there is no more real than anyone else in the game. However, it's like right then, right there, that little part of the game passed the threshold of what I consider acceptable violence, and enjoyment of the violence briefly transitioned to revulsion. And then, just as quickly as it came, the feeling passes, and I have to think, considering it now, it was no accident that the game designers designed the very next part to be a sniper section, so that the player could again have some distance from the computer-generated blood and again see the enemies as targets rather than the all too real illusion the game just created that I was physically killing a living, breathing person.
And I must admit that it is an arbitrary distinction. I find it strange to think that in the Pinkamena video, her cutting off a piece of a pony filled me with disgust and revulsion, whereas in the move Rambo where John Rambo kills the leader of the Myanmar army group by shoving a machete through his torso and slicing him open, I all but clapped and cheered watching that in the theater. So, it would be logical with that in mind that wanton violence is specifically what I dislike. After all, that would explain why I enjoyed the justified violence in the novel The Bear and the Dragon, and most of the violence in Call of Duty games. But that doesn't quite stand up, for two reasons. First, if that was the case, why did I also enjoy watching A Fistful of Explosions, the YouTube parody at http://youtu.be/EnPIPOaRUFg of the most violent parts of Star Trek: The Next Generation spliced together? That was certainly wanton violence, similar to the All Your Base Star Wars parody at http://youtu.be/JQVC9Bd6X4w which had a similar theme. However, both videos would count as "parody", in that the intent of the violence is in service of a running joke, and also it's important to note that neither videos are particularly bloody. They show plenty of instances of people being hurt or dying, but neither strays into the territory of Back on the Grid in terms of blood and injury. Second, if I draw the line at "justified violence", why do I enjoy playing so many games as the "bad guys"? Examples of this are many - the Soviets in Command and Conquer: Red Alert and Red Alert 2, the Brotherhood of Nod in Command and Conquer: Tiberium Sun and Command and Conquer 3, the Cult of Storms in Age of Mythology, the Empire in Star Wars: Force Command, and the Spartans of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri all come to mind as examples of times in video games where I had more fun playing as the bad guys than their good guy counterparts. And the reason for that could really only boil down to two reasons: Either I ideologically found more in common with those factions, or the ideology was irrelevant, and I enjoyed the freer play styles. To explain, those bad guys I mentioned share one thing in common - the goal of world domination. I must admit that despite being a citizen of a democratic country, the desire for world domination and one world government runs strong in me. More than anything, actually, I long for a world united by one and only one language, where anyone in the world can speak to anyone else in the world without needing translation. Those "bad guys" have other tenets of their ideology that I don't agree with (particularly the Soviets of the Command and Conquer series as I'm resolutely anti-Communist) but I must admit that the "bad guy" tenet of world domination has appeal to me. Alternatively, the ideology might have been irrelevant to me in those situations. What all those examples I referred to also shared was a freer play style. A great example of that are that the Soviets in Command and Conquer: Red Alert 2 have no qualms about strapping explosives to a conscript and sending him against a group of enemies, whereas the Allies from the same game have nothing that shows such a reckless disregard for human life, and also have nothing quite as useful. The other examples had similar instances where I as a player was given a freer hand to do unconventional things to win missions. However, interestingly, that enjoyment of the "bad guys" did not extend to the GLA of Command and Conquer: Generals, for almost exactly the same reasons that One Day with Pinkamena did not give me enjoyment. There was one mission in which you as a GLA commander have to shoot down airplanes carrying disaster aid, and murder unarmed villagers before they can collect airdrops. That crossed the line to "wanton violence" in my mind, and made the GLA truly a despicable, evil faction to play as, and I ended up getting more enjoyment killing them as the Chinese and Americans. As a side note, it probably also didn't help that their ideology directly conflicted with mine, as I am an atheist, and a Muslim is about as far away from me ideologically as another human being can go.
So, point being, I enjoy violence in entertainment, but I draw a line at such violence, largely at two points: First, the point that violence becomes "too real" and creates an uncomfortable closeness to the violence, and second, violence that I cannot justify at all.
The bloodthirsty:
I thought this part would be more difficult to right about, but after consideration in the previous section, it now makes sense to me why One Day with Pinkamena caused such revulsion in me: it exactly fit the description that I just gave of violence that is unjustifiable and too real. However, I now must move on to the more difficult question: if I do not find enjoyment in realistic, unjustifiable violence, why would anyone in the world gain enjoyment in that?
Well, two things that come to mind first.
First, my mind automatically goes to team sports whenever I think of something that a lot of people find enjoyment in that I have never and perhaps never will find enjoyment in. Hockey, football, baseball, and soccer in particular are things that millions, perhaps even billions of people in the world find great enjoyment in watching and participating in, but which in me only bring up feelings ranging from mild indifference to acrid hate. On the other end of the spectrum, I mentioned in my previous entries the things I take great enjoyment of but which many people will never in their entire lives take any pleasure in. I specifically mentioned Anthropology and Knotcast in my previous post, but here I'm thinking of PC games in general as well. Also of note are the kindhearted people I mentioned in the beginning of this post who wouldn't even enjoy The Lion King of all things because there is too much violence, death, and sadness in the movie. My point is, even in a world populated entirely by humans, the things that do and do not give me enjoyment can be vastly dissimilar those that give enjoyment to other people in the world, to the point that a football game that would cause excited elation in one person would likely cause angry revulsion in me.
Second, I must consider that such enjoyment is extremely common in the world. How else could you explain the popularity of the horror genre? And again, I make a divide there. I very much enjoyed watching Zach Snyder's Dawn of the Dead, for the reasons already stated (particularly how the violence was justified, despite being particularly realistic), whereas the last horror movie to my memory that I saw in a theater was The House of Wax, which when I watched brought up terrible feelings of revulsion, helplessness, and dissatisfaction and reminded me why I hated horror movies in general.
Maybe it is tangential to the question at hand, but I notice that a common hallmark of a horror movie is a sad ending. I don't get it, I really don't. Why is it that horror fans hate happy endings? I was elated when reading the happy endings of Anthropology and The Bear and the Dragon, just as quite frankly some of my fondest childhood memories are the happy endings of video games, movies, and TV shows, particularly the endings of Power Rangers in Space, Army Men II, and the Allied ending of Command and Conquer: Red Alert II. Actually, it's weird to think that My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic of all places toys with such disappointing endings in some episodes. "Bats!" ends with Fluttershy still having a sharp bat tooth, and "Castle Mane-ia" ends with a spooky shadow in the distance. What, is it supposed to be sequel bait? That certainly makes no sense in those ones, because with how rarely one episode ties to another in MLP, it's likely those stinger-like endings will be forever tied to just those episodes. With that in mind, I can only explain them as attempts to temper a happy ending of those particular episodes. But why? Why must a horror movie not end with the threat being completely eliminated? After all, Star Wars: Episode 4 ended with a happy ending, and that didn't stop more movies from being made. To a horror movie fan, would A New Hope have been a better movie if it ended with Darth Vader blowing up Like Skywalker's X-Wing and Yavin IV exploding? Maybe it's getting too late at night, or the topic of "happy" and "sad" endings being too tangential to the issue at hand, but I have no answer for that question right now.
So, I'll move on to the last part: the violence itself. Now, offhand I can only guess that the enjoyment people take from the violence of horror movies is just pleasure in justified violence being taken to the extreme and divorced from the justification. After all, there is a certain logic one could see in the assumption that, if John Rambo slicing open an evil Army officer is something to be enjoyed, perhaps Jason stabbing a defenseless teenager, or Pinkamena cutting up another pony, is also something meant to be enjoyed. The logic of that assumption is difficult for me personally to understand, but perhaps if I do not understand the joy people take in team sports, I also cannot understand the joy people take in horror movies. That feels like giving up, but perhaps I should clarify what I mean by "understand." If I mean "understand" as in "the ability to feel the same way as another person", then the attempt is doomed to fail from the start. I wouldn't be able to feel the way another person feels for the thing at hand, or else I wouldn't be attempting to understand it in the first place. But if I mean "understand" as in "comprehend the logic of the feeling, even if I cannot feel that feeling myself," that is more up my alley, and that's more doable. But, it's almost 1:00 AM right now, and though I've used this entry to come to an understanding of why I personally do not enjoy such wanton violence as I see in One Day with Pinkamena and other horror-themed videos, an attempt to comprehend the logic in why a person would feel such pleasure escapes me for the time being.
Part 2:
Alright, it is morning now, and I've had some more time to consider the issue.
First of all, the fear aspect of a horror movie can't be glossed over. When I was thinking about the kinds of emotions a person typically experiences watching a horror movie - anticipation, dread, fear, helplessness, and eventual relief, I realized that those emotions are the same emotions a person typically feels on a roller coaster. The topic of fear as entertainment was examined in the Star Trek Voyager episode "The Thaw". The entire clip is at http://youtu.be/RvsXci5qsZ8?t=5m58s but when Janeway asks why is it that people enjoy entertainment that causes fear, The Doctor responds "Fear can provide pleasure. To seek fear is to seek the boundaries of one’s' sensory experience." Such a sentiment is somewhat foreign to me, but far less foreign than the original topic at hand of love of wanton violence. I personally do not enjoy fear in general, but I did enjoy the original X-COM game, which had a degree of fear in it, somewhat similar to a horror movie. In that game, my commandos would assault an alien landing zone, and I would have to deal with the fear of not knowing where the enemy is and knowing that an enemy could pop out of the edge of my soldiers' perception and kill them. I physically jumped in my seat a few times while playing that. But that fear-based game is very different from the concept of a horror game or horror movie. After all, in such a case my soldiers were well-armed, the aliens were not invincible, and each encounter could end three ways - all aliens dead, all soldiers dead, or surviving soldiers retreating to the landing craft. So, it didn't have quite the same feeling of helpless dread as a roller coaster or horror movie generates. Also, the violence was justified and not excessive. When it comes to movies, I've also enjoyed some near-horror movies - that is, movies with some elements of a horror movie without actually being a horror movie. Eight Legged Freaks and Dawn of the Dead had masses of creatures with no compunction about attacking large groups of people. The monsters in Pacific Rim inspired the same feeling of helpless dread as a horror movie villain. But no one would consider Pacific Rim a horror movie. So, the next thing to do is to define what is precisely meant by a 'horror movie'. To the best of my estimation, a horror movie could be defined as 'a movie in which a powerful entity causes great threat to individual people, resists all attempts at its destruction, and causes pain and death in an especially bloody, violent way.' Such a description would include such diverse movies as Friday the 13th, The Grudge, Final Destination, and House of Wax. But that last part is interesting: Why must the method of destruction be especially bloody?
To answer that, I came up with a thought experiment. Take the movie Friday the 13th, and replace Jason's trademark machete with a phaser set on high. So, instead of having him kill people in a relatively slow, bloody method, whenever he is close to someone he wants to kill, he will just point his phaser at them, and they disappear in a flash of light. Now, thinking on that, I would say that many people would consider that ruining the movie. But why? All the other elements of horror would still be there. Jason would still be a powerful entity that caused great threat to individual people and resists attempts at his destruction. But somehow, the concept that death in horror movies must be bloody, or in the case of mummy movies at the very least include slow and painful death, is so tied to the idea of a horror movie that without it, it wouldn't be a horror movie anymore. And for whatever reason, people enjoy horror movies. So then, the question becomes, do they enjoy horror movies despite their bloody nature, or because of it?
There's certainly an argument to be made on both sides. Perhaps people enjoy horror movies despite their bloody nature, and that ultra-violence is just in service of the increase of the fear that people take pleasure in. After all, what's scarier? A lumbering undead zombie that will slice you up and make you die in slow agony, or an undead zombie with a phaser that will instantly and painlessly annihilate you if he sees you? If such a part of the horror movie is supposed to be unpleasant to people, that would create a strange paradox where it would suit the movie for such scenes to be as long, painful, and unpleasant as possible to maximize the pleasant fear and excitement people find in the movie, while also making such scenes as short and painless as possible to reduce the unpleasantness of the scenes themselves. That s a confusing concept and I'm not sure it's true, but there is a degree of logic in that line of reasoning.
The other line of thinking is a bit more disturbing, that people enjoy the bloody nature of horror movies because of their bloody nature. That could be further split into two other possibilities - that some people either do not feel revulsion at all when watching bloody, painful death, or feel the revulsion but have turned it into something pleasant. The former possibility is confusing. Why would a person not feel revulsion at all when watching such things? To answer that question, I turn back to the scene in Rambo where Rambo slices open the Army officer. Now, what I don't quite understand is whether I felt glee at watching that because the justice of the act overwhelmed the revulsion I felt, or because I didn't feel revulsion at all. Similarly, years back I watched video from a slaughterhouse. I did feel revulsion, to be sure, but tempered that with the knowledge that it was not people, but animals that were being killed, and that the knowledge that such things happen has to be reconciled with my distaste for wanton violence for me to remain an omnivore. This path of reasoning seems to have petered out entirely, and I'm really not sure what reason a person would have for not feeling revulsion at all when watching bloody, painful deaths, so I'll just move on to the other possibility, which I've put a lot of thought into: that people do feel revulsion at such things, but some people temper it to a pleasant feeling.
There is certainly plenty of evidence that the very concepts of pleasure and pain are extremely variable from person to person. I remember reading an article on Yahoo! News about a person who cut sugar out of their diet almost completely, and afterward didn't like sugar. It disturbed me, because first it described a person who did not find pleasure in something I take great pleasure in, and second, it belied a difficulty in describing what it means to be human and alive. One would think it would be impossible for the generalization of "everyone loves sugar" to be incorrect, but there, right on the page, was a description of someone that was an exception to that generalization. Similarly, if you look on Fur Affinity, you will see images made by people who have combined all manner of negative emotions and sensations with sex - fear, pain, disgust, helplessness, restriction, and the like - and turned it into something they find pleasant. Lastly, just as someone people have turned the pleasant sensation of sweetness into something they avoid, it has often boggled my mind why people like bitter things, like black coffee. Cicero once wrote “But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?” If he were alive today and available for comment, I would like to ask him “When the sensation of bitterness is so unpleasant, what reason does anyone in the world have to seek out pain with no resulting pleasure?” And further, when generalizations that would seem to be universal, such as "everyone loves sugar", "no one likes bitter drinks", or "no one likes being kicked repeatedly in the balls" are actually not universal, what hope does the world have for a cosmopolitan understanding and for universal empathy?
So, the only conclusion I can draw at present is that, if the bloody nature of horror movies is integral to their enjoyment, and if that bloody nature actually does cause the emotion of revulsion in the people that watch them, those same people that feel revulsion have somehow turned the negative emotion of revulsion into a positive emotion, in the same way a person can turn the negative sensation of bitterness into something they seek out.
It is not a satisfying conclusion to make, because it begs the question of how in the world, even if those assumptions are true, a person can enjoy negative emotions and sensations, and only leaves more questions instead of a solid answer to the original question of why a person would make a video entirely of gory, wanton, unjustified violence.
Part 3:
After finishing the last section, I went downstairs for lunch, and as luck would have it, my Dad happened to come home for his lunch break at that same time. Now, while my Mom is a kindhearted woman, she shows neither desire nor ability for deep conversation, whereas my Dad excels in discussing complex topics. So, after writing to a standstill, I got some second opinions to revitalize the discussion.
First of all, Dad took exception at my narrow definition of a horror movie. He said that he would define a horror movie simply as any movie that is intended to cause fear in the audience. I took exception to that general definition, as that would include the movie Independence Day, and I think it's silly to have a definition of a horror movie that includes both Independence Day and Friday the 13th. He did have a good point though that the movie Aliens might be considered a horror movie, as there are parts of that movie that are fear-inducing. I argued Aliens doesn't quite fit the definition because of how in that movie, the space marines have guns and the aliens aren't invulnerable, so, that Aliens would fall more into the near-horror that X-COM falls into. Second, Dad asserted that people find fear fun, and don't enjoy revulsion in and of itself generally, but more because they cause the pleasant feeling of fear in horror movies. However, he tempered that with two other statements. First, that part of the reason people do things like drink coffee and watch horror movies is to feel new sensations. Now, I countered that, for example, trying a new flavor of ice cream would also be a new sensation, and that would be a new pleasant sensation, but in retrospect I can see what he meant by that, and that yes, new sensations can in themselves be interesting, even if they are not pleasant new sensations, as evidenced by the part of Star Trek: Generations where Data tries a gross drink for the first time, declares in a loud voice that he hates it, and immediately asks for another simply because the feeling of disgust is so novel he wants to try it again. Second, he asserted that the feeling of revulsion is a feeling that often passes, with a deer hunter as his example. If anyone were to watch a person gutting a deer for the first time, they would feel absolutely revolted, despite that being roughly what butchers do all day. I believe the point he was making was that after initial revulsion is felt, it will often go away if a person continues to do whatever made them feel revolted in the first place.
With fresh blood to revitalize the topic, I think I can now follow it to its logical conclusion. First of all, I now have no qualms about making the universal statement that sensations, specifically, are universal. Just the same as a single-celled organism goes towards food and away from danger, any human will feel the same general sensations - hunger, thirst, fear, disgust, sweetness, bitterness, arousal, pain, and pleasure, to name a few. To be more clear, by that I mean that there is no human that, for example, does not feel the sensation of sweetness when they put sugar on their tongue, excepting those with something physically wrong with them so they cannot feel that sensation. Those people I mentioned earlier, the ones that like coffee, hate sugar, and enjoy being kicked repeatedly in the balls became that way through Behavioralism, pure and simple. One way or another, their reactions to those stimuli became conditioned responses, which explains why, though everyone in the world feels the same sensations, the reactions people have to those sensations are so varied. So, with that in mind, the question becomes why people feel the need to override their natural responses to stimuli, and though the individual reasons are varied, there is one overriding reason that huge numbers of people have, and one reason that directly ties to this topic: overriding the natural responses a person has to stimuli is a sign of great self control and maturity.
Take Fluttershy as an example, the very avatar of the concept of kindness. She is loved by all, but one thing that no one in the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic feels is admiration for her. Just watch this video at http://youtu.be/anyK_DzJmgI where Discord points out the general feelings most people have towards the kindhearted: that they're weak and helpless, and full of obvious flaws. Now, take John Rambo as a counter example. I was going to say he is the opposite of Fluttershy, but that's not quite right. John Rambo has a kind and tender streak in him, but he is more the avatar of manly maturity. He ignores pain and fear, and goes out to cause great violence on those that wish to cause harm to the helpless. Edplus777, in making One Day with Pinkamena, is trying to show that he has the same manliness and maturity as John Rambo, and that he can wade through violence and stay cool through it. Because of that, I have to imagine that Edplus777, as a person bloodthirsty for violent entertainment, feels the same way towards someone more into moderate entertainment as I feel towards the kindhearted: that they are pussies. He would probably think that by feeling revulsion from wanton destruction and feeling a negative, visceral reaction to it, that those people lack the coolness and self-control that he does, in the same way that I feel that by Mom's friends Jan and Marty shunning all forms of violence entirely that they lack the coolness and self-control that I do.
So, it all boils down to one logical answer to my original question: Edplus777 made a video entirely of gory, wanton, unjustified violence to shout to the world that he is neither a baby nor a pussy. He wanted to show that though he just made a bunch of kindhearted videos, that he is a mature adult and can stomach huge amounts of violence without being upset about it. And, as someone who cares about what people think of me, but in general refuses to let it sway me, that notion strikes me as...strangely childish, I must say, except also strangely reasonable. By childish, imagine this: Imagine that Edplus777 had stopped his Day in the Life videos before the Zecora and Pinkamena videos. Then, anyone seeing his channel and watching his videos would think Edplus777 as a kindhearted man, and might subject him to the same kind of ridicule that Discord heaped on Fluttershy. But isn't refusal to bend in the face of ridicule its own form of maturity and courage? Perhaps people like Mom's friend Marty have their own form of courage, in that despite some people thinking them weak and immature because they don't like unpleasant things, they don't give in to pressure and start overriding their sensations like other people do. With that view in mind, the Zecora and Pinkamena videos show a kind of surrender on Edplus777's part, and it would have actually showed more courage on his part if he had never made them at all. On the other hand, such a sentiment as Edplus777 had that lead to the video's creation is certainly reasonable to me, and my mind immediately goes to the topic of coffee and alcohol when I think of the unpleasant things that adults do partially to show that they're adults. I hate coffee and alcohol and avoid them completely, and will likely never in my entire life enjoy any coffee or alcoholic beverage. Heck, I can't even stand coffee ice cream. And while I haven't had anyone come right out and call me a baby or a pussy for such a view, I feel it, and can imagine people thinking it. Particularly, one hurtful thing my brother Adam said to me has repeated in my head many times, and while it's not the only reason I don't like him, it's certainly a part of it: he called me a Mormon. I don't remember the physical context, but he was saying that since I don't smoke, don't drink, and do not like alcohol, that I might as well convert to Mormonism. And I hate him for that. I am an atheist, and consider Mormonism to be a cult and to have beliefs directly in conflict to the values I place on truth, science, and lack of delusion. For me of all people to be called a Mormon is one of the most severe insults I can think of, perhaps second only to being called retarded. But related to the topic at hand, the subtext of the joking insult was clear - Adam was calling me prissy, he was calling me a pussy, and he was calling me a baby. Obviously, the great Adam, he who drank beer when he was 12, who moved out of state for his college and got out of the house as soon as possible after he graduated is the very avatar of manliness and self-control, and to him I'm just a prissy little pussy who won't even stomach a near-beer. It's that kind of sentiment that people like me and Edplus777 have to fight against. And similar to how by making One Day with Pinkamena he headed off any possible criticism that he is childish, if I were to share a beer with Adam that would probably also head off at least that line of criticism he could have about me being childish.
And so, I don't agree with Edplus777. I think that making One Day with Pinkamena showed an unhealthy glorification for violence, and he degraded himself by making it rather than sticking to the kindhearted videos that could have caused him great criticism. But I also understand the impulse behind it now, and can imagine that the conflict he felt over how people perceived him is similar to the conflict I feel over how people perceive me, particularly how the bloodthirsty would consider my definition of too much violence to show childishness and arrested development, and how the kindhearted would think that my enjoyment of what I would consider moderate violence to show an unhealthy glorification of violence.
