Do you think something such as "Watch People Die" should be allowed to exist?

LadyJirachu said:

Oh god.

NO.

Something like that should be ended AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.

People should look at more cute things. >:(

EDIT: I'm glad this thread exists. It shows people other than me DO care about violence in media going too far.....*is really happy about that trust me :3*

Click to expand...

and, what's your reasoning or argument for why it should be ended?

LadyJirachu said:

Oh god.

NO.

Something like that should be ended AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.

People should look at more cute things. >:(

Click to expand...

To quote twocows: Personal distaste is a terrible standard to use for what should or shouldn't be allowed to exist.

It doesn't matter how abhorrent you or I think it is, it's all subjective. Wanting to force society to fit your own dogma because you don't like it is a very dark path to follow.

LadyJirachu said:

snip

Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiment that it's awful. However, personal distaste isn't a good standard to use for what should be permissible. If you use personal distaste as a standard, then that means everyone's personal distaste has to be considered. Suddenly people with different political opinions are allowed to silence each other, people who have done misdeeds are allowed to silence others working to expose them, and any kind of injustice or tragedy that might occur can't really be reported on for lack of making people uncomfortable.

Nobody likes to feel uncomfortable, and under most circumstances, I think that's something that should generally be respected. But when something unjust or tragic is taking place, making people uncomfortable can motivate them to act. Take a look at some of the footage of the aftermath of the atomic bomb droppings in Japan: it's horrifying, disturbing, and deeply saddening, but it's those exact feelings that have kept world leaders from using nuclear weapons since. Do any research on the Holocaust and you're likely to see a ton of disturbing images, but that's because disturbing things were being done; really understanding just how bad it was is part of what motivates people to make sure it never happens again.

If you use a less subjective standard like violence versus non-violence, you have many of the same problems. A lot of humanity's worst problems are violent ones and if you want people to actually care, you need to be able to convey just how bad it really is. Other standards have other problems. Want to try and make a determination based on intent? That's basically a guessing game and it's going to be colored by your personal opinions. Want to try and make a value-based determination? That's inherently subjective, plus oftentimes the value in something isn't realized until much later when viewed in a broader context. Any standard you can come up with that disallows things you don't like will end up disallowing things that are way more important to make sure are allowed. And the real kicker is realizing that a lot of the things you dislike may be important to allow as well, so that people can see that there are nasty people out there doing nasty things and to give them the opportunity to decide how they feel about that and potentially respond.

This is why free speech is so important. It's not because we should respect the right of a bunch of demented psychopaths to take pleasure in others' misfortune, but rather because the same principle that permits them to do that permits much more important things that may be similar in content but different in context and because it's important that we see that there are people out there who take joy in others' misfortune. It's also why the question of whether this is taking place on a private site is only relevant to the question of "is," not the question of "should." Free speech is something that should be guaranteed whenever possible, even if it is not. Reddit has no obligation to guarantee peoples' right to free expression on their platform (and indeed they don't), but it's something they should do. Like it or not, it's the right thing to do, even if it sometimes means allowing crappy people to do crappy things.

Hands said:

People who watch legitimate rape videos probably watched normal porn too, there's not much of a correlation. In fact, I'd argue that those watching the real deal are doing so because the fiction doesn't do it for them

Click to expand...

I don't even know what you're trying to disagree with me about. I never said anything to the contrary of what you said. All I said was that this isn't and shouldn't be surprising given how graphic some fictional violence can get and since gore sites have existed since the early 2000s. Watching people get killed is literally the draw of... basically any horror film. Of course something like this exists.

LadyJirachu said:

People should look at more cute things. >:(

Click to expand...

See, this remark, even though I get why you say it, about forcing people to watch what YOU think is beneficial for them bothers me.

The greatest thing about the internet is that almost every piece of information in human history at your fingertips and anyone can CHOOSE what they want or don't want to watch.

So long as people aren't being rounded up for slaughter to feed this habit, I say if someone truly wishes to watch or indulge in this sort of thing, that's their decision. YOU don't have to. No one does. Free will.

As for aggressively suggesting everyone should watch "cute" things, simply because you like it, is exactly the same to me as people who would enjoy watching people die forcing that same sentiment on you "More people should watch murder >:("
Which I doubt you would take kindly to.

I say leave people to what they want to watch. If you don't want to, you don't have to. The glory of the internet.