Would it be hypocritical for a pacifist who believes in nonviolence to enjoy violence or the idea of it in fiction, games and sports?
>>18260572>violence is never the answer! :]>*nuts to headshots in CoD and creams over mortal kombat fatalities*Yes. It is fucking hypocritical. You want the social credit for being a pacifist while jerking it to the power fantasy violence provides. The strongest pacifists reject the catharsis of violence.
>>18260584It is a form of entertainment, though, and nobody is actually getting hurt in fiction. Except in sports, and even that's consensual.
IT WOULD BE HYPOCRITICAL FOR A PACIFIST TO LIVE.
>>18260572Would it be hypocritical for a vegan who believes in minimizing the exploitation of animals to acknowledge if they still think, e.g., cheese tastes good and to enjoy cashew cheese or whatever instead? Similar situation I think. As long as the pacifism is motivated by some principle that only applies to real-life violence, so it's not like they're claiming to be pacifist just because they think violence is icky when their enjoyment of violent video games indicates otherwise.
>>18260572No, because it's fiction. I love capeshit and vigilantes in fiction, but they would be a fucking nightmare in reality. I'd be pushing for laws to ban capeshitters and vigilantes, if they were doing things where I lived.
Only if you can't distinguish fiction from reality, which seems to be a common problem for many people in today's world for some reason.
>>18260721If superheroes were real I'd vote for laws which made it legal to shoot them on sight and would cheer for their public executions. They belong in fiction where stories can have clear cut morality, where there is no doubt that the vigilante is a good person acting on noble principles for the best good of society.A real vigilante would be totally inscrutable. Every time there's a lone wolf shooter even if he releases a manifest people still can't figure out what his actual motives were half the time. Can you imagine trying to sort out the ideology of a mysterious vigilante who remains at large, attacking people seemingly at random? You wouldn't have all the facts, you wouldn't know the details of the incidents or the victims, there wouldn't be a narrator telling you everything the vigilante was thinking and feeling, or what kind of past he had, or what he is trying to achieve. It'd just be random attacks, perhaps some of them on suspicious people, but you'd have no way to really know.Yes, I'd shoot that person on sight, his continued activities undermine the legal foundations of our society and every person he savagely attacks makes people question why they bother to follow the law.
>>18260572no since its fiction, especially since said violence can help to get a message across in a story
>>18260572Not at all, a lot of things which suck in real life make for fun storiesWould anyone who enjoys postapocalyptic fiction be called a hypocrite for enjoying living in civilization?
