• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question about "graphic violence"

B

biggiesmallz

Banned
Exactly what is graphic violence?

And where does it cross the line?

If it's the news is it acceptable?

I don't get it?

Is a fist fight graphic violence?

Police brutality?

The Rodney King beating tape?

A news clip of a shooting?

Remember when those 2 guys robbed a bank in California fully body armored up. Is that considered graphic violence? It's was aired on live TV and replayed on multiple news outlets and other TV shows numerous times in full!

So where's the line?

No war footage?

I'm confused here.



I ask due to this thread http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=1829614&enterthread=y

It was the realities of war. Someone got shot. How is showing the sad side of war wrong?
It's simiar to the news.

I'm just curious as to what the problem was when things just as bad as that gets posted. Like when the guy flew out of his window durning a car chase then got ran over by a car on the freeway. http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=1797416&enterthread=y

That was bad too. What's the difference? Dead is dead.

It's the real world.

Can I get an answer please.

Thank You

Where is the line if there is one?

Thank You
 
A good general rule is - if you have to ask whether something is over the line - it is. 🙁

 
Originally posted by: AnandTech Moderator
Posting a link to murder to get your kicks will not be tolerated here,use common sense
Click to expand...

Who gets a kick off of "murder"?

As far as I'm concerned it was news.

The realities of war. Literally.

The same thing TV reports everyday except bascially a picture speaks a 1000 words.

People just saw what is reported on the news with their own eyes.

If you saying footage of the real world news that is going on right now might scare someone that is different. But what is going on over there is surely dicussed on this site everyday.

I have a hard time understanding the difference between talking about what's going on over there and seeing it with your own eyes.

It's just the news raw, uncut, and uncensored. Which can spark intelligent discussion about what's going on in the real world.
 
Originally posted by: biggiesmallz

It's just the news raw, uncut, and uncensored. Which can spark intelligent discussion about what's going on in the real world.
Click to expand...

I hope you know just how much BS this is OP. Whenever a graphic picture is inserted into a debate it's done for shock value and emotional impact, the opposite of reason. Some examples:

Left wing guy: "The Iraq War has caused terrible suffering to our troops, Bush should be impeached"
Right wing guy: "Overall the war has claimed few American lives, considering the number in the military it's only a small percentage"
Left wing guy: "What about this picture of a dead soldier, that looks like terrible suffering to me. Anyone who supports the war is supporting scenes like this"

OR

Right wing guy: "Abortion is brutal and dangerous, it should be outlawed"
Left wing guy: "Actually, it is as safe and clean of a procedure as we can possibly make it, safe to the mother and painless to the fetus"
Right wing guy: "What about this picture of a partially formed baby in a garbage can, that looks brutal to me. Anyone who supports abortion is supporting this being done to babies."

These sorts of discussion are always brought into a debate when one side wants to shut down discussion through a horrific image, or in order to try to appeal to someone who is revolted by the image and will therefore take a position they may not have by rational debate alone.

CLIFFS: If it is really just "the reality of war" then let it just be said in print rather than in pictures. I guarentee you people know what it means when you say "a dead body", so it isn't necessary to make them feel grossed out by a pic.
 
Originally posted by: Sunrise089
Originally posted by: biggiesmallz

It's just the news raw, uncut, and uncensored. Which can spark intelligent discussion about what's going on in the real world.
Click to expand...

I hope you know just how much BS this is OP. Whenever a graphic picture is inserted into a debate it's done for shock value and emotional impact, the opposite of reason. Some examples:

Left wing guy: "The Iraq War has caused terrible suffering to our troops, Bush should be impeached"
Right wing guy: "Overall the war has claimed few American lives, considering the number in the military it's only a small percentage"
Left wing guy: "What about this picture of a dead soldier, that looks like terrible suffering to me. Anyone who supports the war is supporting scenes like this"

OR

Right wing guy: "Abortion is brutal and dangerous, it should be outlawed"
Left wing guy: "Actually, it is as safe and clean of a procedure as we can possibly make it, safe to the mother and painless to the fetus"
Right wing guy: "What about this picture of a partially formed baby in a garbage can, that looks brutal to me. Anyone who supports abortion is supporting this being done to babies."

These sorts of discussion are always brought into a debate when one side wants to shut down discussion through a horrific image, or in order to try to appeal to someone who is revolted by the image and will therefore take a position they may not have by rational debate alone.

CLIFFS: If it is really just "the reality of war" then let it just be said in print rather than in pictures. I guarentee you people know what it means when you say "a dead body", so it isn't necessary to make them feel grossed out by a pic.
Click to expand...


Did you see the video?

If not I'll PM it to you if you'd like. And anyone else who requests.


It wasn't even shock value to back up an opinion. I was just basically being a "reporter".

It was just uncensored reality of something that really happened that you could form your own opinions to.

It wasn't gratuitous. It was more like news that was posted without any of my own personal opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top