> > My question is this. At what point does desensitisation (reducing shock responses and promoting calm under extreme circumstances, good) become dehunamitisation (not a real word, bad)?
>
> {Far too much to warrant quoting}

First off, I'd like to clarify that I wasn't comparing real violence to simulated, no matter how realistic. It's one thing to see all sorts of squishy bits and gruesome scenes on TV, but quite another to see real people in more than one piece. Or even merely bleeding profusely. No amount of virtual gore can effectively prepare you for the real world, no matter how well-modelled. My question was really one about fake violence itself. A question that can be summed up quite nicely in a caption for a screenshot that I saw in a magazine:

"What *are* acceptable levels of tile-splattering?"

Censors and moderators seem to have an idea about what we are and aren't allowed to see. Scenes of excessive gore may be reduced or cut before they'll allow a film for release. Then it'll be snipped further when it appears on TV. It might even finally beat the censors and make it to Director's Cut. And why? Because people have looked at something and said quite clearly, "too violent" or "acceptable." Is it even possible to draw this line? As you say in your paragraphs on ratings, it's a difficult matter.

To tell the truth, I'm not sure exactly what point I was trying to make before. I'm not even sure I was trying to make a point. A lot of my forum posts are just streams of consciousness; I start with simply a title and type until I get bored. It's good to know that there are people who can finish thoughts off.

Maybe I was just reaching out for reassurance that smirking over those frags doesn't necessarily mean I need therapy. For those interested, my record Serious Sam bloodsmear was about the distance a fully-prepared grenade is launched before bouncing. I was impressed.

> Speaking of kids...

Interesting points raised here, as always. We learn two things when young. One, pain hurts. Two, explosions are cool. The heroes of our films wince at and suffer from the wounds they acquire. The villains get their bases (or even planets) blown up, killing countless henchlings in the process. Which of course, we don't get to see in detail. That would be showing tortuous suffering when it really isn't required. We know that all of these people are dying, and we know that nearly all of them were largely innocent. As you said, kids aren't stupid. From an early age, we're told about the dangers of fire. Some of us may even have been burnt by something. We see the base explode in a cloud of fire, and we know what that would mean. If they showed the results, that would be considered tremendously violent and unsuitable for anyone under the age of dead. But the thing is, they don't. To suggest as these pseudointellectuals do, that it's far less damaging to see just one victim have the life slowly sucked out of him, is frankly just wrong.

If these people want proof, just watch the news for a while. I've seen disasters on TV, both real and realistic. "Hundreds feared dead." "Storm claims over twenty lives." You stop and take notice, but you aren't adversely affected. Until the report in which they show you the clean-up squads carrying the dead and nearly dead. That's when it hits you. When you actually see the suffering, rather than having to imagine it. Until then, it's a statistic. An event. Something that may be talked about in future geography classes across the country. Something that you'll have all but forgotten in a few days. You won't forget the images you saw in the report, though. Those are what stick with you, and those are especially what will stick with children. Quoth the webmaster, "it's about keeping things that evoke extreme visceral or psychological reactions from being exposed to developing minds." Teach kids about death. They need to know in order to function normally. Don't teach them about the process in detail with pop-up books.

Now I know why Don saves time by simply replying with "I agree."

Matthew