Violence | ContraPoints

[Electronic music] [Electronic music] So why is it that humans just can’t stop
killing each other? Well, I don’t know, what do I look like
to you, some kind of philosopher? [plucks harp] So look, Thrasymachus, this is a question
for God and the prophets, not for preening transsexuals who can’t get out of bed without
a Bloody Mary. However, if I were to make a modest contribution
to the subject, I would humbly offer up the hypothesis that humans are horrible
to each other because, well, violence is fun. And when I say that, I of course mean that
it’s fun to be violent. It’s not fun when other people are violent
to you. I mean, unless that’s what you’re into. That is what I’m into. Did I say you could speak? No mistress. Then Shut up. [Electronic music] Mm. It’s good. Chocolate-y. Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is
very uncomfortable to watch, and not just because it depicts horrible acts of violence. Most of the movies I like depict horrible
acts of violence. I mean if you’re gonna watch a non-violent
movie you may as well read a fucking book. What’s disquieting about A Clockwork Orange
is that it encourages us to viddy the old ultra-violence largely from the perspective
of the sadistic protagonist, a jaunty rapist who likes to sing and dance as he tortures
and humiliates his victims. What’s creepy about Alex is the film encourages
us to identify with him, and he kind of draws us in. I mean he listens to Beethoven and I personally
am attracted to every man who has ever liked German composers. Also he tries the wine. Try the wine! Shh. So we watch Alex kick and spin and smash things
and beat the shit out of homeless people and bash old ladies in the face with giant sculptures
of dicks, and all of this to triumphant classical music and show tunes. It’s clear that for Alex, this is all a
lot of fun. So the question I wanna ask is, how unusual
are people like this in real life? Is it normal to enjoy violence? I mean extremely violent behavior is uncommon,
but part of the reason for that might be that most of us live in political circumstances
where behaving like a violent maniac is… highly frowned upon. Plus there’s also that tedious old thing
called having some semblance of a conscience. And I think that’s part of the reason why
so many people don’t really enjoy watching A Clockwork Orange. It’s not that they don’t enjoy violence,
it’s just that in order for them to enjoy violence, they need some kind of reassurance
that the violence is okay, and that enjoying it is morally and socially allowed. I guess it’s kind of like sex. I’m not gonna want to have sex in a fluorescent-lit
bathroom stall [(at least, not since I started taking this shit). I need candlelight to get me in the mood,
you know, a little goddamn ambience. And you could say that the moral conscience
is the fluorescent-lit bathroom stall of the human mind. You can’t properly enjoy violence with all
that internal nagging in the background. But in that case, what is the romantic candlelight
of the sadistic psyche? What do we need to get to a point where we
can enjoy violence? Well, think about the TV show Law and Order:
SVU, which has just as much sex and violence as A Clockwork Orange, but which is much more
popular. SVU is a show where hero cops with no regard
for due process brutally interrogate suspected sex offenders and smash them in the face with
wooden drawers. You like that don’t you? I love it so much. You all do. I think a lot of the appeal of SVU is that
it gives upstanding American citizens a way to sate their curiosity about heinous
sex crimes, while promising the moral purification of justified police violence. Oooh, so that promise is the candlelit ambience
of the moral psyche. When we believe that violence is morally justified,
when we think the guy being thrown around the interrogation room fucking deserved it,
we become more capable of enjoying it aesthetically. Exactly. And I think this kind of moral lampshading
partly explains the popularity of rape-revenge plot lines you see in movies like Kill Bill,
The Crow, and Curious George Kills the Rapist. For viewers with too many moral hangups to
get off on totally senseless violence, a rape-revenge plot line is a cheap way to establish the
emotional precedent required for a gratifying bloody payoff. But I wonder if there may not be as much of
a psychological difference between the “good person’s” enjoyment of justified violence,
and the evil sadist’s enjoyment of random violence as we might like to think. Yes. The good person has a moral conscience as
a kind of inhibitive influence, but once you get past that there’s a kind of amoral kinetic
rapture in swinging, thrashing, stabbing, shooting, blasting, and burning: an aesthetics
of violence and destruction. Now I, for one, hardly ever enjoy real-world
violence because I empathize with the victim and my conscience vetoes any enjoyment of
it. I mean, unless I get real frustrated— [drone]
[baby crying] VO: “Shut up! Please just
shut up!” “I can’t think with all this noise. I can’t think straight.” “You’re so filthy.” “It’s time to drink your milk”
[moaning] But you know, when I’m playing video games,
where there are no moral or practical consequences to any of my actions whatsoever, I behave
like an absolute goddamn psychopath. I guess that a simulation of a thing being
fun doesn’t mean the thing itself is fun. The Sims is a simulation of life, and that’s
fun, but life itself… is terrible. [Electronic music] To be clear, that was a joke, not a cry for
help. I’m actually fine. I have tons of friends. I’m fine. I’m really—I’m, I’m fine. I’m happy, okay?? Here’s what I want to know: unless violence
is fun on some basic level, why are simulations of it so fun that the game-play of most video
games revolves entirely around it? Some critics have suggested that this is simply
toxic masculinity at work, and that it’s a patriarchal moral defect that our media
is so violent. And yeah, it’s true that men are mostly
responsible for this, granted. But honestly I feel a little bit infantilized
by the moral critique, since I like violent media, and I feel like I can tell the difference between
real and fictional violence. Although, sometimes the distinction between real
and simulated violence can get blurrier [glitch] than I usually like to think. [glitch] Singing: “Hush little baby don’t you cry,
momma’s gonna buy you a mockingbird.” Joshua Oppenheimer’s disturbing documentary,
The Act of Killing, chronicles the contemporary lives of the Indonesian gangsters who massacred
millions of alleged communists from 1965-66. One of the killers, Anwar Congo, explains
on a local television program that his torture and murder methods were inspired by sadistic
American movies. [Speaking Indonesian] The documentary takes a surreal turn as the
original perpetrators set to work producing cinematic reenactments of their youthful war
crimes, stylizing the events after Westerns, Mafia films, and other Hollywood genres. It’s a particularly uncomfortable case of
life imitating art. And on that topic, Stanley Kubrick had A Clockwork
Orange withdrawn from British distribution in 1973, after the film was alleged to have
influenced a handful of real-life assaults. Now I’m not saying that violent movies make
people violent, and we know that most consumers of violent media never commit acts of violence
themselves. I mean I watch violent movies all the time
and I’ve never killed anyone who didn’t deserve it. VO: “So now ‘woke’ @ContraPoints thinks
child abuse is funny. I personally drowned several of my babies
and it was very traumatic for me.” Why did I become an SJW again? Hey! What I wanna know, is what’s the difference
between fans of violent movies who are peaceful and those who are sadistic killers? Well, who better to ask than an Indonesian
gangster with a thousand dead communists under his belt? [Speaking Indonesian] So in other words, as long as you can justify
it to yourself with some kind of flimsy excuse, you can kill without remorse. And I imagine it also helps when the US-backed
government of your country endorses the killing and you never have to face any consequences
for it. What’s interesting to me is that the sadistic
enjoyment of violence is psychologically identical whether or not your justification rationally
holds up or makes any sense. In other words the psychology of a righteous
sadist may not differ from that of an evil sadist, except that the former has better
reasons backing him up, or lives in a better political situation. But hold on, is there even such a thing as
a righteous sadist? I think it’s okay to enjoy violent movies,
but is it ever not bad to enjoy real violence? What would be helpful here is an example,
some act of violence that my audience thinks is righteous, and that a lot of them probably
enjoy. Unfortunately, my audience is morally superior,
and none of them would ever enjoy such a thing. [Classical music] VO: “@ContraPoints has completely libbed
out and can’t stop wringing her hands over a poor little Nazi getting hit in the face. Awww.” Alright, alright. Let’s grant that punching a Nazi is
morally acceptable. Let’s say it’s morally required even. Well, why don’t we bring everyone on board. Suppose there’s a Nazi TERF and he’s about
to punch a baby, and punching the TERF Nazi is the only way to stop him punching the baby. Socrates, is it just to punch the baby-puncher? VO: “ContraPoints’ sponsors would like
to apologize to the baby community for this video’s ongoing trivialization of infanticide. They’d also like you to know that some of
Natalie’s best friends are babies, and they all think babies should just learn to take
a joke.” Why are we still even still talking about this over-discussed
Nazi punching bullshit? I guess part of it is that it’s the only
actual recent example of far-left violence in America that anyone seems to be able to
dig up. Not for long bourgeois dogs! Catgirls of the world unite! Tabby, could you bring it down just just just
27 notches or so? [Hiss] Why don’t you take a second to relax. Just chill out a little bit. Here, have some spiked milk. [Disco] That is having a very interesting effect on
her. I guess my continued uneasiness with leftist
“punching” discourse—whether it’s Nazis or TERFs or whatever—is twofold. First there’s just the optics problem. We want to convince people that, for instance,
trans women are not creepy men who want to assault cis women. And I can’t help but wonder, is the slogan “kill all TERFs”
really the most effective way to convey that message? And I realize the costume I’m wearing is
not the best for making this point either. But you know, I just didn’t plan well. The other worry has to do with when violence
stops being strategic and starts being fun, as in our collective enjoyment of the Richard
Spenser punch. Because then it’s not just that we’re
saying sometimes preemptive violence is necessary to prevent worse crimes. It’s that we’re actively fucking enjoying it. And any time real violence becomes fun, that’s
a little alarming, because even if your actions are genuinely justified, you don’t want
to get in the habit of having fun with real violence, because the violence will continue
to be fun whether or not your justifications are any good. Though I agree there’s something sort of
inherently liberal about this anti-sadism hang-up. For most of history it was just accepted that
war involved a certain amount of rape and pillage, and that executions were entertaining
public spectacles. As a boring French postmodernist called… Michel Foucault [mispronounced] pointed out,
in the 18th and 19th centuries there was a so-called humanitarian revolution that was
suddenly ashamed of overt sadism with respect to criminal justice and treatment of the mentally
ill, replacing brutal executions with intricate techniques of discipline. And a boring French communist called Alain
Badiou [overpronounced] argued that this contemporary ethics based on pity and tolerance is actually
just fucking neoliberal bullshit that encourages first-world people to stage third-world “humanitarian
interventions” that look a lot like invasions for some reason, as well as opposing genuine
liberation movements in those very same countries on the grounds that such movements amount
to violent ideology, the bourgeois liberals claim. So I guess in a sense my weird hang-up about
violence benefits the people in power, since you have to break a few eggs to make
a communist utopia, and sometimes to make political progress you have to tar and feather
some folks and cut their heads off just a little bit or punch them in the fucking face. Now I realize that all the non-leftists watching
this are absolutely horrified right now, and they’re thinking, “What’s to stop your violent
revolution from becoming just as bloodthirsty and unjust as the Indonesian gangsters killing
communists?” To which I respond, well that’s an easy
one: it’s because my side are the good people and your side are the bad people. I’m so sorry. Seriously though, that is a pretty good question. But before I answer it, what if I change the
subject to avoid how much of a problem it is for the argument I’m making? Isn’t all politics kind of violent? What about capitalism? Politics is the practice of organizing groups
of human beings, and it’s the relations of power that maintain or disrupt that organization. So there’s always violence or the threat
of violence in there somewhere. In our own society, police will use violence
against us if we disobey the law or are black. And even when white people do obey the law,
there’s always the implicit threat of police violence, including the potential arrest and
incarceration of pretty much every citizen who doesn’t have enough money to— Let’s talk about Western values. According to the great tradition of European
political thought, sovereign power is justified by the social contract. In other words, we all consent to be governed
because it’s in our own interest. Except it’s really hypothetical consent
more than anything, because no one actually asks you and you can’t say no. Wait a minute… Shhh! I guess if you live in a liberal, capitalist
society, it’s pretty easy to see how fascism and revolutionary movements are inherently
violent, and how those political situations generate conditions where violent sadism
can flourish. What’s harder to see is how the same tendency
spills out at the seams of our own supposedly humane society. We think of the police as peacekeepers, not
killers, yet it’s not unheard of that oh… Oh no. Oh god. Likewise we think of our wars as liberation
projects or humanitarian interventions, but when you put real human beings in combat situations,
the nature of war has a way of just oh… Oh god. No. Fuck. We tend to pass particularly harsh moral judgment
on sadism, but sadistic violence isn’t even necessarily the worst thing that can happen
to people. There’s also the quieter structural injustices
that lead to millions of people starving, or workers throwing themselves out of windows
at the iPhone factory, or the lowkey normalization of sexual assault in supposedly civilized
countries, none of which requires so much as a single cackling maniac. So in order to think about this intelligently,
we have to weigh the risk that revolutionary violence will spin out of control and lead
to sadistic mayhem, against the risk that our complacency with the injustices of the
status quo will make us quiet enablers of more subtle but equally unjust forms of violence. And I don’t feel confident enough to say
which one I think is the bigger risk. But I do know I don’t trust the politics
of anyone who doesn’t acknowledge serious problems with both options. So— —in conclusion— —is violence good? Or is it bad? I guess we’ll never know. [Ambient music] You know, with any true philosophical question,
there always comes a point where you realize that all the rationalizations you tell yourself
for all the things you believe and do just don’t really make any sense. And that’s when it’s time to stop thinking
about it, you know? Just go do the fucking laundry. Drink some wine. I don’t know, do whatever. Look, what do you want from me? [Electronic music] [Plucks harp]

100 thoughts on “Violence | ContraPoints

  1. Violence—it's fun! Is that bad?

    This video goes to dark places so please take the content warning seriously.

  2. The bit with Tabby getting tipsy on that weird drink and dancing adds a nice "breather" touch to an otherwise dark and morbid video.

  3. The scene in a Clockwork Orange where they beat up the homeless man was filmed in my home town because the town's brutalist, dystopian architecture suited the tone of the film. I did not enjoy growing up there.

  4. I was doing the laundry and drinking wine when you put on the Alex costume. Way to challenge me straightness.

  5. Incredible and thought provoking video. I may never be able to fall on a side because of the pure existential pain of one person suffering unspeakable terror, for no good reason. It just makes you think there’s just no point. That casualty that is arguably necessary for justice and progress is its own singular apocalypse. One mind enduring unfathomable pain for no other reason than to justify the means just gets to me. Life is cruel and just blind chance though. How does one find the hope to care about their fellow people knowing that everything is temporary and ultimately meaningless? Sorry for this rant. Moral responsibility of revolution is a very tough issue.

  6. "So now 'woke' ContraPoints thinks child abuse is funny. I personally drowned several of my babies and it was very traumatic for me—"

    ContraPoints: "Why did I become an SJW again?" 😂😂😂

    Best joke in the whole video.

  7. GTA is prob my fave game franchise, i just like running people at the sidewalk over with my car/motorcycle

  8. I love that you showed a clip of the pepper spray incident at UC Davis! I was in that area that day, and usually walk where it happened on my way to work, but avoided it that day only because there was too much going on there. The next day/that night I figured out why. FB blew up, and then a lengthy process and investigation started. I had actually met the cop that did the spraying once at work, he seemed nice. Perceptions can be quite deceiving sometimes

  9. Me: Aww… What do I do now that i have watched all of Contra's videos?
    Myself: You could always… re-watch them…?
    I: Wait a minute, that's a great idea! Gosh I love myself…

  10. Violence is part of life, what really suck is that some old fart is propting it and will never face the consequences, or suffer any sort of violence in return

  11. Righteous Sadism is definitely a thing with serial killers. They are called Missionary Killers. People with flimsy moral beliefs that think what they are doing is cleansing the world. Insert eye roll

  12. K I know I'm a weirdo for this but I just legit love to have your videos going on a playlist while I'm going about my daily life on a very loud Bluetooth speaker (so I can hear you over the sounds of me doing dishes mostly) and have gotten more than a few raised eyebrows and questions like "what on Earth are you listening to?" From my mother lol but I just love the way you approach these incredibly complex topics so much that I'm happy to rewatch years old videos I've already seen and heard because tbh you're basically my conscience lol ok that's all I guess, the four shots of vodka I did in the last hour just really love you lol but seriously you're a goddess please never leave my life kthanxbyeeee

  13. when tabby opened the door I audibly cheered and shook my fist in the air enthusiastically. Why has tabby replaced my brain? Why do all my brain cells have little cat ears and bats. Why did contra, in trying to create a satire of far left inability to provide a good image, create our literal mascot?

  14. Oh i admit to thinking about the enjoyment of violence but i don't enjoy the consequences of violence. Like i enjoy the thought about sex but the act gives me a panic attack.

    This does indeed bring an interesting subject to light. Violence is OK if it's the right violence morally. But it's still violence. And the morals change all the time.

  15. This is an American thing, you can enjoy violence as long as the people getting hurt are "villains" and there is some sort of Judaic old testament revenge violence involved. That's why the world thinks American films are retarded and pathetic

  16. I think violence is only entertaining because it amounts to drama – which is entertainment when it's not at your expense.

  17. What's the name of the classical baroque music durin the breakfast scene in the opening?

  18. I like it when contrapoints videos conclude with 'fuck, I don't know, what do you fucking want from me?'

    At least she's honest and just as confused as all of us.

  19. I'm sure everyone who's played Sims has at least at one time taken the ladder out of the pool.

  20. There's a line in that movie The Fog of War that sticks with me: "Proportionality should be a guideline in war." I think what it means is that you shouldn't commit any more violence than is necessary to meet your objective. Punching wanna-be nazis for the lulz is definitely not necessary to meet our objective. If they were to become an actual mortal threat then obviously that changes things.

  21. Wow I did not see a reference to one of the worst events in my country's history coming

  22. I still feel upset when committing senseless violence in video games.

  23. Violence is a manifestation of the ills of the people in our society. Many types of violence is even incentivized in our society. Violence is only fun for people who are far removed from their humanity. The world we live in isolates us and disconnects us from each other, our nature and ourselves and violence is the evidence of that. If we were aware of our connectedness to Earth, we wouldn't be violent towards it. (just one example)

  24. Does Till Lindemann (Rammstein) count as German composer? And if so, when are we going to fuck?

  25. Had to watch this one at least 5 times. Because everytime, in random moments during the important political considerations, my mind went back to "she has one Lady and the Unicorn!" "is it a flag or a kanga?" "how did she get it, did she buy it, did she take a jpg in a flashdisk to a printing house?" "I want one Lady and the Unicorn too!" "or perhaps a tee" etc.

  26. I was taught to always deescalate the situation as far as possible. But I don't believe that violence should be used against people you disagree with politically as long as a peaceful avenue exists.

  27. What I want from you is to know if you actually wash your clothes in the dishwasher.

  28. I would so love to sit and eat steak and eggs with you, Natalie, but aaaaaaaaas aaaaaaaaaa veeeeeeeegaaaaaaaaaan…. (confirmed and proud shoy-boy)

  29. A Clockwork Orange has the best soundtrack of any film, in my opinion, and I first saw it in the 90s, after the vocoder's years of abuse in pop r'n'b boybands.

    Imagine how the people at the time received it, it must have been totally alien!

    It's one of the few "dystopian future" films of the genre that hasn't aged badly. I could still see that as the UK in the future (if you ignore the lack of digital appliances).

  30. Well I enjoy it when evil, mean, bad people get hurt but when it's innocent people I suffer. Who can relate?

    Seriously I enjoy it when bad people suffer, it feels like eating chocolate

  31. I personally hate even the idea of violence (like this video is cringey for me). I don't like it in video games, seeing it in movies or sports, and my aversion is so strong that the idea that anyone WOULD enjoy that is disgusting to me. It's like the idea of violently hurting someone strikes me right to my heart, I don't know.

  32. I'm very late to comment on this video, but one concept that I don't think was mentioned is that there is a potential that if the concept of 'justified' violence against political opponents is justified, be it in the form of 'punching a Nazi', what's to stop them from returning the favour? If this violence does become justified, then what argument can you make against a gang of iron-toed fascists beating anyone left-of-centre to death in the street, due to the fact that pre-emptive political assault becomes rationalized, and they can turn the same argument around and say that it's okay to 'whack a Commie', due to crimes committed in the USSR and China?

  33. I really like the video but i have problems enjoying it because the subtitles aren't present at each sentence. I mean I read english subtitles to better get what you mean since i'm not an english native but damn sometimes i have hard to get some stuffs that the subtitles doesn't write it down x)
    Still the video is great like always

    Take care of you!

  34. this video inspired me to punch and drown several babies, and I can now conclude that violence is indeed fun! if you're interested in trying it out, babies are way easier to murder than larger humans are. i'm pretty sure they were nazi babies though, so it's cool. thanks for the insperation natalie! also, that latex suit.. nice.

  35. My thought : violence bad. The end.
    Outside of the obvious "punching natzees terfs" I think violence is never justifiable. It should always be the last fcking resort. If you can't talk it out : talk it out more.

  36. Cuando vi al muñeco que representaba al bebé y vi la bañera, pensé inmediatamente que lo ahogarían y esa sensación fue incómoda. No pude evitar pensar un "Uuuugh, tal vez esto se excesivo".
    Por esa razón agradezco las muchas referencias a esa escena en el video y la temática misma del video. La escena nos lleva al cuestionamiento moral de cada uno mientras nos hacen hincapié en la violencia en la que participamos en los videojuegos. No hubo heridos reales en ambos casos.

  37. Hmm.

    1) In my opinion, it's how someone reacts to depictions of violence that matters. Books, TV, film, and other media do not have agency, so they can't really act upon morality on their own. It's how the content manifests in the consumer's mind: Do they use depictions of violence (grotesque, "justified", comedic, or otherwise) to gain a greater understanding of the genre, work, and/or reality? Or do they indulge as if the media is just as good as the real thing?

    3) Also IMO: This sort of discourse is only possible when physical well-being is a guarantee. If the world ended tomorrow and I had to fashion firearms and knives out of plumbing parts while stocking up on canned dog food and bullets, I'm not going to be concerned about the sociopolitical impact of violent media.

    This is the most politics / ideology stuff I've committed to in almost 3 years

  38. i saw the content warning and i was like "COOL ALL MY FAVOURITE THINGS PACKED INTO ONE VIDEO!"

  39. Only americans think their armys are heroes came to liberate us third world peasnts. Here we call them what they really are ,murderers!

  40. I'm not a big Nietzsche fan normally, but I can help but identify with his notion that many of our notions of justice is kind of just a primal desire for violence that's been focused through a more recently developed moral perspective that's told us that we can't just "might makes right" everyone.

    It wouldn't be unfair to say then that the violent sadist is just the guy being more honest with that desire and has eschewed the moral lens.

    Of course that's not to say that the moral lens is bad, more that it doesn't always justify the primal urge. It's kind of the argument against the death penalty. Once you've caught someone and locked them up forever, there really isn't much meaningful difference for society if we execute them or not. It costs more to put them on death row than to just keep them locked up, it's easy to screw up so that the person suffers while dying, and if we make a mistake and execute an innocent person, there's no avenue for correction. But we're so caught up in the notion that execution constitutes a form of justice that many of us are loathe to get rid of it.

    I think the primary goal is that while the moral lens helps us avoid only being violent for fun, we ultimately need to accompany the question of "Is the violence morally justified" with "Is the violence useful" It's more than a little cynically pragmatic, but morals are a little too subjective to serve as a universal standard. I don't mean that we should kill or hurt people just because it's convenient, but if we only care about what feels "right" than we end up with a sort of righteousness that is easy to get lost in, and we can end up doing things that is fueled more by emotion than an effort at improving things.

    So for instance, should you punch a Nazi? On a scale of morality, I think that given their stated views its easy to rationalize that a nazi is worthy of violence. (You might disagree and that's your prerogative, morality is pretty subjective after all) Is it useful to punch a Nazi however? That's debatable. I can see compelling arguments that preemptive violence serves a purpose, but I'm mostly of the opinion that you need to have your punches directed with a little more purpose than sucker-punching Spencer on camera and running away. It feels righteous, and it gets people talking, but it's not necessarily winning people over or improving the case against Nazis. A different Nazi punching situation might be a different matter, but I'm not convinced on this specific instance.

  41. I'm not sure about most things, but I KNOW for a fact that there is no The Sims player in the whole world who has never purposely burned their sims alive, or drowned them in a pool. CHANGE MY MIND

  42. Dan Carlin (who has some annoying centrist/lib views, but has overall good content) does a really interesting podcast on torture.

    He asks that you imagine the most violent movie you love and enjoy, but then imagine that the actors weren't acting and were really hurting each other and suffering. He asks whether this would be any less popular in this day and age if it were the case because historically you had exactly this happen at Roman games. Executions and torture used to be huge social events that tonnes of people would flock to. It seems like something that people have always been super drawn to, whether out of curiousity or sadism, for a good chunk of recorded history.

  43. You do so much wonderful work. I'm watching your whole catalogue, and I love it. You are smart, talented, and well-informed. I'm sure you do a lot of reading. I work in the social justice field (Waco Immigrants Alliance) as well, and I appreciate that you bring light to so many issues that people need to think about. You're getting people to THINK, which is valuable beyond measure. Thank you for what you do. Badass Kweens gonna Save the World.

  44. Violent media doesn't make people violent. It does however however have the potential to inspire violent people not so much to commit the violence itself, but the way in which they do it. Such people are going to commit violence anyway. It's like, I'm going to the grocery store to buy groceries. I buy some cheese because I saw a good cheese based recipe recently. Whether I saw the cheese recipe and buy cheese or not, point is I'm still buying groceries. Heck, I might buy cheese even without the recipe.

    Along this line, and on the other side of the same coin, guns do not cause violence any more than having a cheese shredder causes cheese to be shredded. I might have a cheese shredder and never even buy cheese. Or I might buy cheese and never shred it.

    If we want people to stop violence, we need to address the cause of the violence, not the tools used. There will always be tools that can be used for violence. Whether a given tool for violence is designed to be used for violence or not is completely immaterial to the question of whether or not it can be used for violence, or how effective it is for committing violence is.

    A disgruntled taxi cab driver in South Korea killed nearly 300 people with just some gasoline and a match. Gasoline and matches weren't designed to commit violence. A group of people worked together to hijack some planes and fly them into buildings, killing even more people. Those planes weren't designed to commit violence.

    Whether guns are designed to commit violence and a pressure cooker or a car isn't is entirely beside the point. Guns being designed to commit violence and other things not being is made even more irrelevant by the fact that non-gun methods of committing violence can be even more effective at doing so than a gun.

    Mass shootings for that matter constitute only about 1.4% of the murders in America, and that's even counting the mass shootings that never make it on the news. Wait, mass shootings that never make it on the news? You've never heard of such a thing? Of course not, they don't make it on the news. The number for people killed in mass shootings kept by law enforcement is based on the definition of "more than 4 people dying in a single gun related incident." This does not exclude when two drug dealers and their thugs go at it over territory, and 2 people from both sides die, totaling just 4 people. In fact, that kind of mass shooting happens to be far more common than Bubba Joe shooting up El Paso over his hatred of Mexicans.

    If we stopped the war on drugs and provided more responsible ways to solve the drug problem than creating an environment that fosters unregulated distribution of drugs in violently fought over territories, then we'd eliminate almost all the mass shootings. Find a way to deal with violent extremism (this includes Anti-Fa as much as it includes the people Anti-Fa fight against). Then we'll eliminate most of the rest of the mass shootings. From there, we have the school shootings to worry about. Given that most of the kids who do that cite bullying and the rest are abused at home, there's your culprit there…

    The thing that would do the biggest good is stopping the war on drugs. That would also eliminate most of the actual homicides in America, gun or otherwise.

  45. Humans can't stop killing each other because killing is an expression of power, and people just love power.

  46. Damn you should do a cooking channel that breakfast looked great. Real violence is terrifying and boring. Hollywood violence is a form of dancing ballet.

  47. I know this is old but the preview is the best it’s contra eating steak really sassily

  48. Hi! How can I contact you? I wish we can discuss "topology of violence" (by Byung Chul Han). In case you are not familiarized with his work, I recomend you "Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power". Im from Argentina. Thank you for all!!

  49. You make some great points…
    But your clockwork orange eyelash is on the wrong side
    leftissts distroyd

  50. I'm watching all her videos in order, and a PragerU ad plays before this one, featuring their lawyer talking about free speech. Super trippy.

  51. I’d really rather stand with the side that’s aware of the possible pitfalls and problems in the human psyche, instead of the right wing which seems more apt to deny and ignore their existence.

  52. I'm high key attracted to Taby.

    It's not relevant, I just thinks it's strange that my on button comes pre-packed in a far-leftist stereotype and I wanted to comment about that

  53. i think people throwing themselves out of the World Trade would have been a more salient example of the institutional violence inherent in the American lead and controlled system of global consumerism

  54. Just started the video, but I want to point out that you always season your steak before you cook it. C'mon folks. GET IT TOGETHER.

  55. I always feel called out for enjoying the punching of Natsees, I am a deeply empathetic person, I can't even watch fail compilations, because I can only think about how the people might have gotten hurt… but god do I enjoy a good natsee punching :/ can't even rationalize it

  56. You don't want to be governed by anyone who doesn't take both sides seriously… Well, then both America and big parts of Europe are out of the picture, aren't they?
    Tell me when you find a politician who doesn't take the violence/thread a police and military force excerpts as a given.

  57. Sadism is a particular psychological trait, but it doesn't account for every kind of violence. Most violence is committed because it is justified by a moral code or seen as "necessary", or it indirectly benefits the person doing it. For example, some slaveholders enjoyed beating their slaves, but every slaveholder enjoyed being rich by having free labor, and they all had moral codes that justified it. If you are a slave, it harms you either way. So I think it matters more to focus on the impact and creating justice, rather than trying to understand motivations for violence (unless you are trying to rehabilitate someone who has committed violence, then it matters why they did it).

  58. The most unethical part of this video was getting that rasputin song stuck in my head

  59. I love the nuance in this video. It makes an acknowledgement of both sadistic violence and systemic violence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *