Jump to content
Darth Richard II

Rothfuss XIV: The Slow Regard of Luna Lovegood

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How many of those school shooters ate hamburgers?  Is hamburger consumption responsible for school shootings?

You keep pointing to correlations but you never explain how those correlations have  any causal connection to the violence offered.  People see violence every day in person and on various media platorms.  Violence is dramatic and has always been an element in various forms of drama.  

Please explain why the violence portrayed in “Natural Born Killers” caused other violence that occured in real life.  Until you make this connection the correlation you describe is no more relevant than school shooters eating burgers and drinking milk.

 

Google "CHINA COPYCAT CRIME"

This is the thing for some people are highly susceptible and vulnerable to some media types. Out of the million of them who are like that, one or two will actually go out and commit the crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ran said:

The only reason I waded in at all was that I was bothered by how badly Rothfuss argues.

He's well-educated, he's clearly intelligent, he writes beautiful prose, he's been very generous with his charitable efforts, and so on. He seems, all in all, like someone who has done more good in the world than bad, and so the people who spend their times raging at him for not finishing his latest book are wrong and should find better things to do with themselves.

Fortunately for him, I do not care about his next book at all! One book was enough (the bit I quoted from WMF was on the internet :P) for me, but even if it weren't, I'm sympathetic to his difficulties, as I would be with any other artist who finds themselves in difficulties. I've no personal animus, and wish him the best.

But given all that, he threw out some hot garbage at PAX and to me it feels like he's not really aware of the fact of why some of what he said should not have been said. I mean, I won't even get into his insisting the Punisher is the character everyone goes to to mock (pretty sure Robin is the #1 character to mock in comics, because of his sidekick status; or if not him, Aquaman) and seeming kind of mystified that people clearly did not agree...

 

Not really a fan of dear leader hero fantasy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try re-watching any cop movie from 80's or 90's while keeping the recent police shootings in the USA in mind, and try not to cringe. I remember my discomfort during the scenes in Beverly Hills Cop where the by-the-book policeman who actually asks the suspects to surrender and drop their weapons is treated as comic relief. I can guarantee that each of the policemen guilty of shootings or unarmed people grew up watching those same movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Stego said:

That book is hot garbage. Everything from the psychology to the physical strength/maturity is impossible for a what -- 12yr old? 10? Something absurd. 

Sending a Lawrence book in protest to Rothfuss would be like sending a Goodkind book in protest to GRRM. (Except that Goodkind has given me SOME enjoyment.)

I feel as though I'd appreciate this much more if I knew the first thing about Goodkind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gorn said:

Try re-watching any cop movie from 80's or 90's while keeping the recent police shootings in the USA in mind, and try not to cringe. I remember my discomfort during the scenes in Beverly Hills Cop where the by-the-book policeman who actually asks the suspects to surrender and drop their weapons is treated as comic relief. I can guarantee that each of the policemen guilty of shootings or unarmed people grew up watching those same movies.

Nice try, but no prize. A proper Rothfussian argument is that Beverly Hills Cop is specifically responsible for 327 police homicides that would not have happened had that movie not existed.

 

 

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gorn said:

Try re-watching any cop movie from 80's or 90's while keeping the recent police shootings in the USA in mind, and try not to cringe. I remember my discomfort during the scenes in Beverly Hills Cop where the by-the-book policeman who actually asks the suspects to surrender and drop their weapons is treated as comic relief. I can guarantee that each of the policemen guilty of shootings or unarmed people grew up watching those same movies.

Gorn,

Is it your contention that “but for” those cop movies of the 80s and 90s the police shootings of today would not be taking place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a conception of what "cause" entails that has allowed right-wing politicians in Australia to ignore climate change's effects on the occurrence of natural disasters. The climate scientists define causation as "could not have happened without this variable", which you can't really say is true for the relationship between climate change and natural disasters, since natural disasters occurred before man-made climate change was a thing. And the politicians jump on to this, declaring that you can't blame climate change for natural disasters. But we do know that climate change increases the risk of more frequent and more severe natural disasters, so it is always operating as a contributory cause.

I interpreted Rothfuss' talking of numbers of deaths caused as a rhetorical flourish to illustrate his point, which I interpreted as being about a contributory rather than an "if-and-only-if"-type cause, but I do have to admit that my reasoning for that is more intuitive than based upon the actual arguments he is marshaling. I suspect that, on the smoking issue, he is taking his own experience and then generalising it to the wider population, which is a terrible way to make an argument. I never felt particularly enticed by the smoking in The Hobbit, but I don't take that to mean that no kid would be, and Rothfuss should not fall into the same trap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Mazzack said:

That's a conception of what "cause" entails that has allowed right-wing politicians in Australia to ignore climate change's effects on the occurrence of natural disasters. The climate scientists define causation as "could not have happened without this variable", which you can't really say is true for the relationship between climate change and natural disasters, since natural disasters occurred before man-made climate change was a thing. And the politicians jump on to this, declaring that you can't blame climate change for natural disasters. But we do know that climate change increases the risk of more frequent and more severe natural disasters, so it is always operating as a contributory cause.

I interpreted Rothfuss' talking of numbers of deaths caused as a rhetorical flourish to illustrate his point, which I interpreted as being about a contributory rather than an "if-and-only-if"-type cause, but I do have to admit that my reasoning for that is more intuitive than based upon the actual arguments he is marshaling. I suspect that, on the smoking issue, he is taking his own experience and then generalising it to the wider population, which is a terrible way to make an argument. I never felt particularly enticed by the smoking in The Hobbit, but I don't take that to mean that no kid would be, and Rothfuss should not fall into the same trap.

This is thoughtful and well considered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Gorn,

Is it your contention that “but for” those cop movies of the 80s and 90s the police shootings of today would not be taking place?

No, it is not. The primary causes are malignant police station microculture and racism, but the influence of wider pop culture should not be ignored.

Now, a question for you: do you support or oppose bans on cigarette ads?

ETA: Another question: in your opinion, would a strict regulation of glorification of gun violence in movies, TV and video games, if implemented today, reduce rates of gun ownership in the US twenty years from now?

Edited by Gorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Gorn said:

 

Now, a question for you: do you support or oppose bans on cigarette ads?

 

A better question might be, do you believe a ban on cigarette ads is impactful? 

I feel like this better gets to the heart of the issue, as a person could believe that reducing/eliminating these ads reduces the incidence of smoking while still not supporting a policy of government interference in this area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gorn said:

No, it is not. The primary causes are malignant police station microculture and racism, but the influence of wider pop culture should not be ignored.

Now, a question for you: do you support or oppose bans on cigarette ads?

ETA: Another question: in your opinion, would a strict regulation of glorification of gun violence in movies, TV and video games, if implemented today, reduce rates of gun ownership in the US twenty years from now?

Cigarette ads are expressly designed to make cigarette smoking appealing and to attempt to entice people to smoke cigarettes.  Are you saying that movies "80s and 90s Cop movies" are expressly designed to make cops killing people appealing and attempting to entice people into becoming police officers so that they can kill people?

As to your edit, I have no idea. 

Violence is part of drama.  It has always been part of Drama.  For the love of God Oedipus killed his father and married his mother in the "Oedipus Rex" trilogy of plays by Sophocles.  Should that be banned because of its portrayal of family violence?  

Drama plays on conflict.  Conflict frequently involves violence.  Are you claiming that if people don't see violence portrayed in media that violence will be significantly reduced?  I believe in strong regulation of firearms but to restrict the portrayal of violence with firearms in dramatic media be it television, movies, youtube videos, or books seems beyond the pale to me. 

I absolutely do not want Government to have the power to tell people what they may and may not write.  That's where this is going.  What can be written if we are going to take the position that anything written may encourage people to do things that we wouldn't want them to do in real life?  How can you have any sort of drama if people portrayed only ever do the safe and kind thing.  You have to have people doing things that injure or hurt others for drama to exist?

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing for government regulation of speech, just pointing out that art has consequences, both intended and unintended.

Besides, government has always regulated speech - every country in the world has some sort of anti-pornography or anti-obscenity laws. However, we as a society have decided that depiction of one person murdering another is more deserving of protection than depiction of female nipple or a same-sex kiss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gorn said:

I'm not arguing for government regulation of speech, just pointing out that art has consequences, both intended and unintended.

Besides, government has always regulated speech - every country in the world has some sort of anti-pornography or anti-obscenity laws. However, we as a society have decided that depiction of one person murdering another is more deserving of protection than depiction of female nipple or a same-sex kiss.

Gorn,

"Art has consequences, both intended and unintended".  That statement implies that art is responsible for people actions.  That drama portraying violence is the cause of violence.  Now, you'll walk it back and say "it isn't responsible but it contributes to it".  

How?  How does art contribute to violent situations?  How do dramatic writings or visual presentations portraying violence contribute to real life violence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Gorn,

"Art has consequences, both intended and unintended".  That statement implies that art is responsible for people actions.  That drama portraying violence is the cause of violence.  Now, you'll walk it back and say "it isn't responsible but it contributes to it".  

How?  How does art contribute to violent situations?  How do dramatic writings or visual presentations portraying violence contribute to real life violence?

I don't want to Godwin the discussion, but would you argue that Joseph Goebbels wasn't a war criminal? After all, he never personally killed anyone or ordered anyone's death. Would you say that propaganda is harmless?

Even if we focus only on less extreme examples, mass cultural depiction of a certain type of behavior will end up normalizing it, and there are countless examples of it, both positive and negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Gorn said:

I don't want to Godwin the discussion, but would you argue that Joseph Goebbels wasn't a war criminal? After all, he never personally killed anyone or ordered anyone's death. Would you say that propaganda is harmless?

Even if we focus only on less extreme examples, mass cultural depiction of a certain type of behavior will end up normalizing it, and there are countless examples of it, both positive and negative.

You aren’t answering my question.  Goebbles was a propagandist he’s more akin to cigarette ads than 80s and 90s police movies.  Goebbels intended to manipulate.  As such judging his actions is very different from looking Donner’s “Lethal Weapon” films.

How are films contributing to societial violence?

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Gorn said:

I don't want to Godwin the discussion, but would you argue that Joseph Goebbels wasn't a war criminal? After all, he never personally killed anyone or ordered anyone's death. Would you say that propaganda is harmless?

Even if we focus only on less extreme examples, mass cultural depiction of a certain type of behavior will end up normalizing it, and there are countless examples of it, both positive and negative.

You aren’t answering my question.  Goebbles was a propagandist he’s more akin to cigarette ads than 80s and 90s police movies.  Goebbels intended to manipulate.  As such judging his actions is very different from looking 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×