Why Do People Enjoy Violence?

[Deleted member 13]

I'd like to preface this by saying that I am, in no way, trying to be judgmental or smug or anything of that nature. I just genuinely want to understand a phenomenon that I feel no connection with.

What is it about violent force and physical confrontation that people find entertaining? Any time there's a drunken brawl or a street fight, there is always a crowd of people cheering and egging the fighters on. People film these videos and post them online, to which they receive thousands of views. Boxing, Cage Fighting, MMA, and other such violent sports are extremely popular and are billion dollar industries. Violence is often see as a cathartic and heroic solution to problems in entertainment and fiction.

I, personally, have never really felt this impulse or this exhilaration that other people seem to feel. I don't like seeing blood get drawn, even if it's a fair fight in a professional environment. I get really squeamish and put off any time I see someone experiencing physical pain or distress. And I just realized that I probably sound like a complete pussy, but I've obviously never really been a "manly" guy, so who am I kidding.

Now, most people probably want to attribute this to "human nature", but that seems like a cop-out to me. I feel like humans have several biological urges and tendencies that we don't indulge in or embrace, so I would consider violence as entertainment to have more of a cultural root than anything else.

Anyway. Thoughts? Opinions?

 

[Colonel Thunder]

I dunno. Combat kind of seems like an ultimate test of who a person is.

 

[Tirin]

Being aggressive makes you feel good because it was a good evolutionary trait to have (since you'd be more willing to compete for things like mates and territory, I'd assume). The very nature of it makes it an exciting thing to begin with.

Personally, I pretty well arbitrarily find violent sports more fun to watch and/or partake in. I'd prefer wrestling, boxing, hockey, or rugby to soccer, baseball, or basketball any day of the week.

 

[Frilzer]

Violence means conflict, conflict means something is happening, something happening is interesting. People like things that interest them.

In my very simplistic way of putting it. I could go on, but it would ultimately say that.

 

[coolpool2]

I can't stand seeing violence in shows or in real life. I don't really get any enjoyment from it. I can't see what is funny about things like tripping, I know how much a trip can hurt, it can break your bones if you are not careful. I also don't like those youtube videos where they scare people and do pranks. I basically cannot get enjoyment from other people's expense, even if it is a cartoon or something.

 

[Tolvan]

I can't say I enjoy it either, beyond video game violence (and even then, I don't much like the more graphic games, though for different reasons). However, I think Tearin and Frilzer make an excellent point.

 

[Deleted member 13]

I dunno. Combat kind of seems like an ultimate test of who a person is.

How so?

I mean, if you were to make a list of what defines a person, would "how well they fight" really be that high up there?

 

[Tirin]

No, but how well they would mentally handle conflict and adversity certainly would be.

 

[Deleted member 13]

No, but how well they would mentally handle conflict and adversity certainly would be.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "mentally handle". There doesn't really seem to be a lot of mental strength or character that goes into a fight. It's basically purely physical strength, agility, and training.

Also, what about a pacifist? Would you say they aren't mentally handling it well since they refuse to even engage in the act?

 

[Tirin]

Refusing to deal with conflict is certainly not handling it well as far as solving the problem goes. Being ready to fight if it's necessary is a positive trait, where the opposite (as well as going out of your way to cause fights) is a negative one. The actual fighting doesn't mean nearly as much, but whether or not you'll rise to the occasion does.

 

[Colonel Thunder]

"In their last moments, people show you who they really are..."

 

[Deleted member 13]

Refusing to deal with conflict is certainly not handling it well as far as solving the problem goes. Being ready to fight if it's necessary is a positive trait, where the opposite (as well as going out of your way to cause fights) is a negative one. The actual fighting doesn't mean nearly as much, but whether or not you'll rise to the occasion does.

Nonviolent resistance is a tried and true method of conflict resolution.

You know, unless you want to argue that Gandhi was just being a coward.

Edit: I'd also argue that, while I disagree with pacifism, refusing to fight in the face of certain physical harm takes a lot of courage, intellectual integrity, and moral strength.

 

[Chlegyr]

 

[Chlegyr]

Nonviolent resistance is a tried and true method of conflict resolution.

 

[Deleted member 13]

Yeah, I mean, it's not like peaceful protests have ever toppled regimes or ended wars or anything.

Oh wait. Fucking wait.

 

[Tirin]

Peaceful protests have this major disadvantage where they only work against a government willing to tolerate them. A truly terrible and oppressive government cannot possibly be brought down by peaceful protests, because it'll just throw bullets at the peaceful protesters until they go away.

 

[Chlegyr]

Yeah, I mean, it's not like peaceful protests have ever toppled regimes or ended wars or anything.

Oh wait. Fucking wait.

See, Regis, I don't want to be the one who gets all real here but this is the main reason why no-one takes these threads seriously.

You start the post claiming a neutral opinion with some non offensive disclaimer about you "just not getting" something and wanting it explained to you. You then spend the rest of the thread on some self righteous tirade about how your opinion is the gospel truth and use nothing but caustic sarcasm to address any of the points raised by other people.

If you want to rant then do so, don't sucker people in pretending it's a normal discussion if you're just going to scream about being right.

 

[Walrus]

Violence is way too broad of a term here.

In terms of slapstick comedy: Eh, not the biggest fan though I still find this kind of humor amusing occassionally.

In terms of drawing blood: Eh, that's not really necessary, and it is somewhat disgusting when a boxing fight leads to somebody bleeding profusely. There's some dramatic value to it, so throwing blood into a cinematic fight scene can be useful for emotional storytelling (e.g. tired warrior with blood on his face still willing to continue the fight = "DAMN!")

In terms of entertainment: Gurren Lagann is a fantastic show because it uses fights for dramatic effect, and the fights are more of a way to demonstrate the conflict being fought and the willpower and character development of the fighters. Just look at the title of this video.

While I'm not a fan of professional wrestling, professional wrestling in a way uses the staged fights as a way to tell stories about character rivalries; when they determine that one wrestler is going to win a specific fight, it's because they want to push the story they're creating in that direction.

In terms of MMA / (non-fake) Wrestling: Its not about drawing blood or about how the people are injured as a result of the fighting. What makes it interesting to watch is an understanding and appreciation for tactical play. Fighting well requires skill and, as with any sport, if you understand the strategy and the tactical play involved, you can critically enjoy a good fight and all the interesting and well executed tactics. Even if you don't understand the tactics involved that much, some moves still just look impressive and exciting. Compared to team sports like football, the one on one sports (which tend to be "violent sports" like MMA/Wrestling, though fencing is another one and isn't really violent) feel more intimate and tense. Compared to less violent sports, the violent ones tend to feel more like direct conflict than sports where players are more restricted in how they interact with the opposition (e.g. If you touch him to block, it's a foul).

In terms of crowds watching people fight: Its that tension, drama, and intimacy of a fight that makes people want to watch. Its not because people are being hurt, but because people enjoy watching conflict.

Peaceful protests have this major disadvantage where they only work against a government willing to tolerate them. A truly terrible and oppressive government cannot possibly be brought down by peaceful protests, because it'll just throw bullets at the peaceful protesters until they go away.

I generally agree with this. To tangentially elaborate, its useful to see the different methods of change (violent vs nonviolent protests) as part of a process of steps instead of as either/or methods.
1. Identify problem
2. Try to negotiate for change
3. If negotiation doesn't work, try nonviolent protests
4. If nonviolent protests don't work, try violent protests and revolution

Moving up a step means applying more pressure on whatever organization/government you're trying to change. As a social change group, going through these steps in order and not moving up to the next step when unnecessary helps to boost your credibility (skipping straight to violent protest can get you viewed as an extremist/terrorist). I get agitated when groups violently riot or make protest bombs if I feel they skipped step 3 and/or jumped from step 3 to 4 without good cause to do so. Violent protest in the US today for some sort of issue? Probably not necessary for change. In a highly oppressive dictatorship? Probably is necessary, but do try nonviolent protest first so you can maybe get some credibility on the international scale (and also try contacting international organizations for support before jumping into violence). Then, when looking at the Walk on Wall Street protests that happened a while back: Those weren't very effective because there wasn't a clearly identified problem or attempts at negotiation.

 

[Tolvan]

If I had a mech that could throw galaxies IRL, I wouldn't have a problem using it, even though I'm generally someone pacifistic.

 

[Tirin]

If I had a mech that could throw galaxies IRL, I wouldn't have a problem using it, even though I'm generally someone pacifistic.

You would exterminate quadrillions of life forms, some almost doubtless sentient, in the name of entertainment. You are a monster.