AFnord: The stats I've seen indicate that this is incorrect. The purchasing power of the median and the average US citizen has gone up since the recession, and compared to 20 and 30 years ago. That does not mean that everything is fine, mind you, there are plenty of things that could and should be better, but things are not worse, they are slightly better.

lazydog: 0/10 for effort.
0/10 for originality

StingingVelvet: All media has aspects of "social control." Even the theater did back in the old days. However I don't think that's a bad thing really, the majority of humans need some kind of control or pacifier to not go crazy, IMO.

kai2: BTW, I'm not advocating rioting or violence against anyone -- especially not against cops.

I live in Los Angeles and we are known for movie stars, earthquakes, and a riot or two. The last true riot we had was in the early 90's. That got me to thinking...

If the economics of populations here haven't gotten better since the 90's (in fact they've gotten much worse) -- and economics are usually the biggest underlying factor in riots -- why are we seeing no rioting (or even many marches)?

I keep wondering if it's video games.

In the past, people took their frustrations to the street. Now they go home and load up GTA V.

In the past they might confront the first level of government -- law enforcement. Now they go online and "kill" virtual cops -- expelling anger and passion in a video game moreso than on-the-street.

I'm wondering if the virtual world -- however fun -- is actually subverting the energy that might in the past have been a catalyst for change?

Please understand I am not advocating violence, but I am wondering if that spark -- that catalyst of change which can be transformative (in good or bad ways) -- is being burned in video games instead of IRL.

clarry: Not only that, but it's also being wasted on social media, internet forums and such. Places where you can argue till you get sick of it, and yet where changing the world in a meaningful way hardly ever happens.

kai2: I'm not saying violent video games are a perfect substitute for venting those emotions, but I do think they work very well.

kai2: No, this is incorrect. I wish it was otherwise! Median incomes have actually stayed stagnant and/or fallen over the last 30 years. There are many research institutes (Pew being one) posting these numbers online and it is clear to see anecdotally living here.

One of the major reasons for the skewed numbers are the sheer numbers of people falling off of the workforce rolls. Since 2008 a record number of workerss have simply left the workforce.

kai2: I do not understand your hostility. You seem to be posting like posts in my threads.

I'm sorry you feel so bothered by my threads that you need to both post your "disinterest" and downvote me.

You know you're free to simply not reply, right?

I often -- when I say "often" a actually me always -- refrain from replying to threads I find unoriginal or lacking effort.

I'm more than happy to mull you reply but it would need to be something critical / useful / constructive.

Have a great day! ;)

clarry: Not only that, but it's also being wasted on social media, internet forums and such. Places where you can argue till you get sick of it, and yet where changing the world in a meaningful way hardly ever happens.

lazydog: I have answered the question you sent over to me and I will reply to posts that I do not consider relevant to gaming or this forum.

CMOT70: The short answer is yes, in a way they are- just like sport and other diversions.

The longer answer: The human is a very aggressive and territorial species of animal- specifically a primate and like most primates is also tribal. What humans do, the violence and aggression, is perfectly natural and goes back to the instincts required for early survival. The great torment for the human is that our intellect has far outstripped the natural evolution of our base instincts. Intellect cannot be overcome instinct at a species level. Modern social disorders, like pacifism, go completely against everything instinctive. Suppress the instincts of any animal and all you do is make it even more aggressive.

So the Romans came up with blood sports and the Greeks came up with the Olympics, as early attempts to manage aggression and stop wide spread social problems for an increasingly bored- yet still very dangerous animal. It gave people an outlet for their aggression and the spectators a team for their tribalism. Modern sports do the same thing, it gives us something safer as an outlet, all with rules and medical help on standby.

Video games are another modern form. Violent games do not make us more violent, we are that already. They give us an outlet, and make it that much less likely we'll go down to the Pub and start a brawl and glass people. Everyone jumps on the hype train and blames Doom for two kids walking a school and opening fire. But no one ever mentioned the other countless millions that played Doom and did not walk into a school and shoot it up.

Yes, video games like many other things, are types of social control that can be used to keep our base instincts relatively in check. But if you're having fun, who cares?

flurrycream: Claims about human nature or what is natural are usually something to be sceptical of because I usually see it being tied into politics.
You could easily reverse it and say humans are very open and cooperative species. Consider also games can be cooperative as well as competitve.

Also over reliance on the idea on the idea of animal instincts and that, we aren't just instinctual creatures so its really an over simplification.

Saying pacifism is unnatural makes no sense, since it comes from Humans which are part of nature no? Not every person may support it but that doesnt matter.
Is technology natural either?

I do agree sports is an outlet of aggression in someways and before Humans had otherways to channel that energy. Although to point something obvious it was mostly Men (of a certain type) who were involved in those sports of past. Even if nowdays more Women are involved in more modern sports (again of a certain type). Though they would have been involved indirectly

kai2: No, this is incorrect. I wish it was otherwise! Median incomes have actually stayed stagnant and/or fallen over the last 30 years. There are many research institutes (Pew being one) posting these numbers online and it is clear to see anecdotally living here.

One of the major reasons for the skewed numbers are the sheer numbers of people falling off of the workforce rolls. Since 2008 a record number of workerss have simply left the workforce.

SirHandsome: I think a good argument could be made that pacifism is unnatural. We must take to survive. Even a vegan needs someone to grow the crops, which in turn deprives animals and other humans from living off that land.
Whos to say whats yours is yours to eat anyhow? Well the law does, but laws carry with them an implicit threat of violence, so you would also have to believe in no laws. If someone keeps taking your food (or crops) you would have no recourse, because the law is violence so you cannot call the police, nor can you defend yourself.
The only reason people believe that pacifism is possible is because society has insulated them from the violence of thier own needs.
Someone could be a pure pacifist by renouncing law and starving themselves, but that doesnt end well.

flurrycream: In any case it seems more like you are trying to say that true non violence is not possible which makes more sense.