Enjoying the death of an entire group of ficitional people?

[ray245]

Recently, events at SB.com has let me think about this issue for quite a while. That forum has a strong culture where people love to bash certain fictional world like Harry Potter and enjoying kids getting killed in horror movies. The enjoyment of Hogwarts, a school being almost defenseless because it is a children-teenager novel, by enjoying the fact that they can be killed by Nuclear bombs and etc.

I am also quite ashamed of myself in the past, where I called for the extinction of the race from the world war series.( I should never let my feelings overtake my thinking. )

The question is, just how wrong is such a behavior? Is this attitude just as bad as calling for genocide of an entire group of people in real life? Or is this behavior not as bad as supporting genocide in real life?

Clarify with me if there is anything wrong with my sentence structure and the question I am asking.

[General Zod]

Feeling guilty over wishing harm on imaginary people is silly. They aren't real so there is no harm being caused; otherwise I'd be guilty of mass murder, genocide and multiple crimes against humanity simply by virtue of the videogames I play.

[Junghalli]

Seeing as the people in question are nonexistant I don't see how it can be considered wrong. At worst, it's internet tough guy posturing (something you see a lot of on SB), which is distasteful but hardly evil.

Hell, I know I've had fantasies of performing an Exterminatus on Gor, or Gaia (Foundationverse).

[Eleas]

The thought of a competent invading force sweeping through the world of the Wheel of Time series, inflicting suffering and death onto all, may be distasteful. It also happens to be one of the most soothing mental exercises I know. And I'm not alone in this. I've previously spoken of my friend Pendragon and how he dealt with our mutual hatred for Corran Horn; we simply started a Star Wars RPG campaign with the specific goal of killing the bastard.

Maybe it's sadistic, but this type of revenge fantasy is pretty far removed from reality. Much like with sex fantasies, what you do in your head is your business. I certainly shed few tears for a fictional character, doubly so when said character actually deserves everything it gets.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I don't want to see the Potterverse nuked. But damn it would be good to see Dumbledore's ass up in front of a war crimes tribunal.

I can see the concern with wishing people, races, or society death in fantasy, but in most cases, I doubt what people say they'd want in a fantasy world is what they'd want in the real world. Saying "nuke Hogwarts", does not nessissarily mean you'd want to use a nuke in real life, where you'd actually hurt people. If Hogwarts was a real place and they could fire a nuke to obliterate it, I doubt most of those people would go ahead an push the button themselves. The behavior you describe is distastful, perhaps troubling, but I don't think I'd say evil, unless you're suffering from a breach with reality.

[Admiral Valdemar]

How about feeling sympathy for a Simpson character being pictured having underage sex? That's actually a crime in Australia.

[Shroom Man 777]

If no one (real) is getting hurt from the production of those sadistic fictions, then there really isn't anything wrong with it. Even if the reader/watcher is mentally ill. Mental sickness isn't immoral.

Now, if the work was created through the exploitation or suffering of another human being, then it's bad. Like those snuff films where they do hurt people, or those really fucked up pornoes. Even a fiction book containing bad stuff happening to fictional people would be bad if the author was being coerced to write the damn thing in a really nasty way.

Like, imagine Stephen King being forced to eat a bathtub full of unprocessed lard while deranged fans try to make him write his greatest masterpiece of horrer.

[Coyote]

It's also worth noting that in some cases, certain people or races are invented for the precise purpose of being despised/disliked and to take some measure of joy in their harm or destruction. Again, it is a fictional stand-in for a real dislike, and therefore harmless.

[ray245]

If no one (real) is getting hurt from the production of those sadistic fictions, then there really isn't anything wrong with it. Even if the reader/watcher is mentally ill. Mental sickness isn't immoral.

Now, if the work was created through the exploitation or suffering of another human being, then it's bad. Like those snuff films where they do hurt people, or those really fucked up pornoes. Even a fiction book containing bad stuff happening to fictional people would be bad if the author was being coerced to write the damn thing in a really nasty way.

Like, imagine Stephen King being forced to eat a bathtub full of unprocessed lard while deranged fans try to make him write his greatest masterpiece of horrer.

The idea of people enjoying things like rape for instance is sick...

[Oskuro]

There's nothing really wrong, as there is nothing wrong with any type of fantasy, no matter how extreme it is, as long as it is a fantasy.

But I understand your point of view. In my case, when playing videogames, I often ponder about the feelings of the virtual creature I'm crushing, and sometimes feel bad about it. To me, it simply means I'm not a monster, and I can understand that, if those fictional creatures were real, I'd be doing something terribly wrong.

[General Zod]

If no one (real) is getting hurt from the production of those sadistic fictions, then there really isn't anything wrong with it. Even if the reader/watcher is mentally ill. Mental sickness isn't immoral.

Now, if the work was created through the exploitation or suffering of another human being, then it's bad. Like those snuff films where they do hurt people, or those really fucked up pornoes. Even a fiction book containing bad stuff happening to fictional people would be bad if the author was being coerced to write the damn thing in a really nasty way.

Like, imagine Stephen King being forced to eat a bathtub full of unprocessed lard while deranged fans try to make him write his greatest masterpiece of horrer.

The idea of people enjoying things like rape for instance is sick...

Except until they act on it, nobody is being harmed. That's the key thing really, whether or not someone actually acts on their fantasy.

[Shiva]

Most people do not have a problem seeing fiction and reality are opposite planes. No one would think that genocide of any group of persons is a good thing or somthing to be enjoyed, unless you are a psychopath or have some kind of beef with a lot of people. A lot of people said that the US should have nuked the Middle East after 9/11 and most probably didn't mean it and were just angry at what happened. A lot of real life anger towards a group of people is not a good thing in real life. In fiction it's all up to how the author or the writer wants you to think and the author creates the worldview the reader is supposed to have. By reading the book, watching the movie, playing the game etc...you temporarily place yourself in the worldview of the author. This is not akin to enjoying a horrible act, no matter what it may be.

[Oskuro]

The idea of people enjoying things like rape for instance is sick...

Actually, rape fantasies are very common among women, yet they don't want to be raped in reality. Fantasies let us safely explore the dark depths of our psyche.

[Solauren]

Can I point out to you Ray, that most of these fantasy's are directed at what can be called extremely BAD WRITING?

It's not the characters we're taking revenge against, it's the writing. We're going 'okay, you know what, everything else about this is within-universe realistic, but there is this gapping hole', and then exploiting it, or venting our frustration over a character we paid $15 to read about, and now want our money back.

Quite frankly, it's better then writing critisim to the authors. AFter all, someone might actually ready our threads then our author-letters.

[Eleas]

Quite frankly, it's better then writing critisim to the authors. AFter all, someone might actually ready our threads then our author-letters.

Oh indeed, although I must admit it's more viscerally satisfying to direct it against a specific author than his/her works. It also helps when the author is patting him- or herself on the back so hard it sounds like a maraccas concert. But yeah, I too have been guilty of muddying the issue. Folks around here may recall my stated dislike of Michael Stackpole, but really, I don't hate or even dislike the man at all. I think he's full of himself and a borderline hack who should have been forced to mature in his craft for a decade more at least, instead of being coddled by Bantam Books and other franchises. But that lack of talent doesn't translate into being a bad person by any means. If we were to compare Stackpole to, for instance, John Gregory Betancourt, then Betancourt, for all his talent, was the one who chose to hijack the late Roger Zelazny's Amber series in direct defiance of his stated wishes, and Stackpole was the one who spoke up against such douchebaggery. Being good at writing doesn't mean you can't be an asshole.

[Shroom Man 777]

The idea of people enjoying things like rape for instance is sick...

Actually, rape fantasies are very common among women, yet they don't want to be raped in reality. Fantasies let us safely explore the dark depths of our psyche.

What? Please expound on that.

[Sarevok]

I just killed 2 billion people by nuking Earth in Galciv II. What does that make me by the OPs standards ?

[Admiral Valdemar]

What? Please expound on that.

It's a sexual thrill that, if in a controlled environment, can be very erotic. Victorian literature was full of it. It's no different morally to the lusting of violent revenge against a character in a movie who really pisses you off. Doesn't mean you're going to actually go kill someone, though you can play a game pretending you are, just as you can have sex with a partner roleplaying a rape fantasy.

If you start telling people what they can and cannot think, then you're creating thought crime. And that is a very slippery slope to go down.

[Shroom Man 777]

Er, yeah. I'm just unfamiliar with the idea of women fantasizing about being raped, is all. Seemed more like a Japanese thang, in any case. They actually made a movie called 'Rapeman'.

[Junghalli]

Er, yeah. I'm just unfamiliar with the idea of women fantasizing about being raped, is all. Seemed more like a Japanese thang, in any case. They actually made a movie called 'Rapeman'.

Maybe it's so they can fantasize about having really dirty casual sex without losing their "good girl" perception of themselves, since they're being forced to do it in the fantasy.

[speaker-to-trolls]

Bizzarrely I can see where you're coming from with this question, even though a seconds logical thought confirms that, no, encouraging fictional genocide is not and can never be as bad as encouraging real genocide. I've recently been unsettled by the idea of sentencing millions of hypothetical people to death because one was annoyed by some aspect of a story, this was different when I was younger, when I would gleefully imagine civilisations that annoyed me in some way being smashed in a tide of horror, but now I think the whole thing is kind of disturbing and/or petty, depending on context. For instance, if you're talking about blowing up Hogwarts/the Federation/civilisation X, Y or Z which annoys you in some way I'd find it both, because of the unnescessary slaughter of innocents, if it's the Draka I'd just find it petty, because I just think it's petty to fantasise about the destruction of made up places or people.
Of course, I'll happily wipe out a city in Rome:Total War if it annoys me, but I like to think of that as being in character.

Having said that there is of course nothing wrong with fantasising about... well, anything, as others have pointed out, unless it could effect your behaviour, of course. And if you want to fantasise and even write about a hundred billion people being wiped out for using unergonomic guns then go right ahead, it's a free world, at least in the parts where most of us live.

[Samuel]

Er, yeah. I'm just unfamiliar with the idea of women fantasizing about being raped, is all. Seemed more like a Japanese thang, in any case. They actually made a movie called 'Rapeman'.

Is the theme song ripped from Batman?

Also, there was a talk about this subject here:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8&t=129451

I just killed 2 billion people by nuking Earth in Galciv II. What does that make me by the OPs standards ?

Prudent. If you didn't do it, you would have had to spend your mens lives by the billions as well. The fools should have surrendered when you had orbital superiority.

[The Romulan Republic]

I just killed 2 billion people by nuking Earth in Galciv II. What does that make me by the OPs standards ?

Prudent. If you didn't do it, you would have had to spend your mens lives by the billions as well. The fools should have surrendered when you had orbital superiority.

But is sacrificing a civllian's life to save a soldeir's ethical? Unless the army is made of conscripts, the soldeir volunteered to fight. The civillians did no such thing. Nor did they choose to refuse to surrender, unless the government of said world puts such questions to a vote. And even then some would have voted no, etc.

Not that I'm trying to turn this into a debate on collateral damage or anything.

[Junghalli]

But is sacrificing a civllian's life to save a soldeir's ethical? Unless the army is made of conscripts, the soldeir volunteered to fight. The civillians did no such thing. Nor did they choose to refuse to surrender, unless the government of said world puts such questions to a vote. And even then some would have voted no, etc.

The reality of war is that your first priority is going to be trying to achieve your war aims with a minimum amount of damage to your own side. Anything else increases the odds that you're going to lose.

[Samuel]

I just killed 2 billion people by nuking Earth in Galciv II. What does that make me by the OPs standards ?

Prudent. If you didn't do it, you would have had to spend your mens lives by the billions as well. The fools should have surrendered when you had orbital superiority.

But is sacrificing a civllian's life to save a soldeir's ethical? Unless the army is made of conscripts, the soldeir volunteered to fight. The civillians did no such thing. Nor did they choose to refuse to surrender, unless the government of said world puts such questions to a vote. And even then some would have voted no, etc.

Not that I'm trying to turn this into a debate on collateral damage or anything.

In Gal Civ 2 the people you kill are fighting back against you. How they get the entire civilian population to fight is beyond me, but there we go.