Does hatred and violence on social media, tv, sensationalized press, and abundance of sex material create break down society

[fromderinside]

You see the headline. There are ample examples in the politics forum from which to draw positions. Does media, particularly hate based, violent, and sexual abuse material cause increased violence. There are other explanations of course. Society size breaks down social structure after tribe sizes (200 to a few thousand persons) after one's ability to personalize individuals and groups is exceeded; Persons are less well trained in social principles and practices today; people to follow loud and bright things; etc.

Here's your chance. Are we individually responsible or are we individuals who are mostly subject to thing and happenings around us. What does the current wave of violence and abuse, if there is a such a current trend, say about us.

I like to think I make my own decisions based on what I think is best for those around me and myself. Am I misguided?

Bottom line are we masters or slaves to information and goings on around us?

OK I spent a longtime setting up. Someone here break it down to Trump bytes. Are we crooked this or wimpy that? Why?

 

[repoman]

DEGENERACY!

- - - Updated - - -

Right wing talk about moral degeneracy, and the left wing talk about economic oppression and commoditization of people. Both have points. But the right wing ignores the latter all the time without fail.

 

[repoman]

This is a catholic conspiracy talking about this topic, fascinating stuff:

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Observation: Violent movies are associated with a dip in actual violence. People who are inclined that way spend time in the theater instead of out on the streets actually doing it.

Observation: There's a major negative correlation between the availability of porn and sex crimes.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I notice that the thread and op title say sex material but the OP actually talks about sexual abuse....

Most porn and erotica is neither violent nor exploitative.

 

[repoman]

Maybe We should look at the George Orwell vs. Aldous Huxley methods of control.

People use Orwellian as a term but never Huxleyian and they should.

 

[another1]

fromderinside it seems like there is a thicker fog now. Especially with political entertainment and racial shooting episodes coming out more often. My show hole has been replaced so I'm not complaining or anything.
Hard to concentrate on one target in this void of subjects. Like what isn't sexual, hate based and hilariously violent? Seeing it in reality is easy to endure, and in some cases fun. Too easy if you ask me, and it shouldn't be fun. But the real entertainment in my opinion is seeing people point this stuff out. Fan fiction I guess maybe. I was on the fence for a while, but I'm pretty sure some people still live in reality. I don't know, but that is some thick ass fog out there man. So thick you can write your name in it.

Like, people don't see the elephant in the room because it has been tortured into doing breakdancing tricks for our bedazzlement. And to make things worse, half the time we do the torturing ourselves, thanks to the convenience of social media. Like I said, I'm not complaining because I can stare into the soulful eyes of an elephant without flinching, while firecrackers go off in it's butt. As long as it is on a screen. I don't make that a habit, but my own desensitization is a key point. I know many, many people who are the same. Horrible thing, and don't get me wrong, if I saw it in real life, I'd freak out and probably get trampled from trying to comfort the poor animal. But yeah what is the difference really. Funny Joke: What is more tragic than torturing an elephant? Forgetting the camera.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Observation: Violent movies are associated with a dip in actual violence. People who are inclined that way spend time in the theater instead of out on the streets actually doing it.

Observation: There's a major negative correlation between the availability of porn and sex crimes.

Your second "observation" is actually a conclusion drawn from your first observation.

To the point though, humans are violent - observation one. If one presumes otherwise then this thread is the result.

another1, lots of good stuff to think about in your post.

 

[zorq]

Maybe We should look at the George Orwell vs. Aldous Huxley methods of control.

People use Orwellian as a term but never Huxleyian and they should.

http://highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-huxley-vs-orwell/

Fromderinside seems to be identifying a synthesis of the Orwell and Huxley corruption of society. People are being corrupted because they are inundated by social media with things they "love to hate."

It also sounds like he is wondering just how much influence media has on our perception of the world. LP points out that media seems to act as a buffer preventing some despicable deeds from manifesting in the real world perhaps because they are simulated in the minds of those with a propensity for them via media. This means that access to media DOES affect us. If it mollifies some of us, does it also radicalize others? Will limiting or releasing different media cause more radicalization or mollification?


I don't know.

 

[untermensche]

The appearance of things is mostly based on your age.

Society looks broken to those so old the present world does not resemble the world they were born in.

But to the young society looks exactly as it should.

 

[fromderinside]

I guess if one opens a shooting gallery one should expect participants shooting at every angle.

A couple observations on Loren Pechtel's observations:
On LP's observation one I call BS supported with the following study which appeara in American Psychologist in June 2001:Media Violence and the American Public http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.24.1427&rep=rep1&type=pdf

On LP's observation 2 my reply is more nuanced supported by the following studies: The ‘Butner Study’ Redux: A Report of the Incidence of Hands-on Child Victimization by Child Pornography Offenders http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/I C A C/2013 - April 18-19/09f - BUTNER STUDY.pdf (Journal of Family Violence 2009), and Pornography, public acceptance and Sexrelated Crime http://Pornography, public acceptance and sex related crime: A review

The former finds a clear correlation between child offenders and use of child porn literature while the latter finds negative or no correlations between availability of pornography and sex crime. One might, probably wrongly, leap to the conclusion that specif crime offenders are more likely to have bee aided to their end by use of literature whist those who don't commit sex crimes or abuse women aren't swayed by porn availability. Those who are candidates for such crime apparently arrive at being criminals by other than through use of port, but, if they do read such literature and they are biased toward abuse they are more likely to commit such abuse against others when they have read such porn. I have not found another study so complete from any other form of sexual violence. Perhaps they too are facilitated when they access such porn. Still, the bottom line, it is other than porn literature that leads one to commit such crime.

Yes Jolly_Penguin I do say abuse since that is a violent sex act and the parallel I'm interested in discussing is between action and literature availability.

Yes Repoman I am interested in finding germinal relations between political view and and their relation to the potential for right or left leaning individuals to be more likely to being influenced by the availability of violent literature and committing violent acts. This is a political not a psychological forum. Perhaps those who direct their lives are more likely to act on what they read and be republican or democrat than those who let events drag them along or vise versa.

untermensche I'll do my best to find studies on your contention.

zorq and another1 have more complex notions which I will try to deal with in another post which may engage joedad beyond saying humans are violent. Now, dinner.

 

[another1]

fromderinside I know only one solution. One that no one can give. A random and uncontrollable event that will cause the electrical pipes to stop pumping. They're pretty fragile, and it isn't a question of when how. It is a question of why not. Whatever the phrase is supposed to be, the point was conveyed. When the pipe lose their juice, people will sigh of relief without the micro waves penetrating them all day. They would have to find real, productive things to do. It would be worthwhile if it only lasted a few weeks. Then when the juice comes back on, I doubt people will be so crazy. Just a mellow 3 weeks to help people reevaluate their world. If the electricity is dried up for longer than a few months, we may find new uses for our gadgets. Using them to make fire and cutting tools. Trading for food. The list goes on and on. But 3 weeks sounds just about right.

 

[Deepak]

Maybe We should look at the George Orwell vs. Aldous Huxley methods of control.

People use Orwellian as a term but never Huxleyian and they should.

That's a terrible idea.

Huxleyesque is much more harmonious.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Observation: Violent movies are associated with a dip in actual violence. People who are inclined that way spend time in the theater instead of out on the streets actually doing it.

Observation: There's a major negative correlation between the availability of porn and sex crimes.

Your second "observation" is actually a conclusion drawn from your first observation.

To the point though, humans are violent - observation one. If one presumes otherwise then this thread is the result.

another1, lots of good stuff to think about in your post.

While they are related #2 didn't come from #1. #2 was known well before #1 was discovered.

 

[ksen]

A steady diet of Bob Ross videos would cure society.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I guess if one opens a shooting gallery one should expect participants shooting at every angle.

A couple observations on Loren Pechtel's observations:
On LP's observation one I call BS supported with the following study which appeara in American Psychologist in June 2001:Media Violence and the American Public http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.24.1427&rep=rep1&type=pdf

That's looking at the overall level of media violence vs real world violence which doesn't prove causation--the media might be reflecting reality, there might be a third factor driving both. I'm talking about a short term effect: the release of a violent movie causes a dip in real world problems. There's no way the dip causes the release of the movie, the arrow of causality is clearly fixed.

On LP's observation 2 my reply is more nuanced supported by the following studies: The ‘Butner Study’ Redux: A Report of the Incidence of Hands-on Child Victimization by Child Pornography Offenders http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/I C A C/2013 - April 18-19/09f - BUTNER STUDY.pdf (Journal of Family Violence 2009), and Pornography, public acceptance and Sexrelated Crime http://Pornography, public acceptance and sex related crime: A review

The former finds a clear correlation between child offenders and use of child porn literature while the latter finds negative or no correlations between availability of pornography and sex crime.

The child porn study is irrelevant--child porn is not readily available in society. Your third "link" is to a title, not a URL.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2032762
(Rape constant while other crimes increased)

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/28803/title/Porn--Good-for-us-/
(Later years, rape declined.)

Note, also:

and in those countries that allowed for the possession of child pornography, child sex abuse has declined.

Something I have been saying for years should be studied. Apparently someone has and the effect is what I would expect.

 

[repoman]

yikes on that note (huh, won't go to the 1:40 minute mark):

 

[Jarhyn]

The op asks two questions, and I think it is problematic. I do think that violence and hatred have a corrosive effect on society, albeit one that society heals faster than it is damaged (not unlike the effects of mosquitoes or undetectable HIV: it is not sufficient to cause the organism of society to die but it does damage that makes it less able to deal with other threats). The problem, though, is that sex is thrown into that bag when it really deserves to be asked separately, particularly because all sex-positive communities I participate in are far less dysfunctional than society in general.

All the hairless apes I see around me seem to think violence is so utterly pervasive, to the point where someone has to hide the fact that they like wearing panties more than they have to hide the fact that they enjoy irresponsibly firing weapons like they are toys. It isn't the availability of sexual material that causes the breakdown of society, it is our own apish desire to force others away from sex (presumably to decrease genetic competition, from an entirely darwinistic standpoint) that causes the problem, when really we should be having more (safe) sex, with just about everyone.

 

[Tigers!]

The appearance of things is mostly based on your age.

Society looks broken to those so old the present world does not resemble the world they were born in.

But to the young society looks exactly as it should.

Then the young should not complain. It is quite silly to complain about something that is exactly as it should be.

 

[untermensche]

The appearance of things is mostly based on your age.

Society looks broken to those so old the present world does not resemble the world they were born in.

But to the young society looks exactly as it should.

Then the young should not complain. It is quite silly to complain about something that is exactly as it should be.

How many complain and shake the cage in rage?

A handful.

Most skip along glued to the screen of their phone.