“I’ve found through talking to other people over the years, that as humans, many of us need to express a repressed hunter-gather primitive side that is no longer accepted in civilized modern society. Some people do it through video games, some love horror and violent movies, some people play paintball, whatever. I have a part of me that needs to go to war, but I’m not a soldier. I have a need to punish myself and flip out, but I don’t really want to cause permanent damage to my body or anyone else’s. I truly feel that LB is that outlet for many many people. It’s important.”
This is a pretty thoughtful email exchange with Wes Boreland, quoted above. (h/t @maura)
Borland’s defense of Limp Bizkit (LB) is fine, I think. But this part above kind of irks me, because I don’t think it’s true. I think that humans are born in order to be runners (ask my girlfriend—I won’t shut up about this), but I don’t think humans are born to be violent. Ofc., I could be totally wrong about that. (I think the issue itself isn’t well-put, ie, what does ‘born to…’ mean?) It doesn’t matter since let’s just say we’re doing philosophy here—it doesn’t matter if you’re right.
The point, though, is that all of these so-called grounded-in-humanity behaviors are expressed in purely capitalistic ways. I mean, specifically the ones above, but also many not expressed there. I’m not saying that violence is something that’s created by moneyed interests, but it is one of the easiest things to sell. Could it be that the original human urge isn’t to murder each other (because, honestly, if you think about it? it can’t be that) but rather to be duped by unseen forces—whether they’re gravity or capitalist market pressure to fuck shit up woo hoo.
I guess my point is, is violence bought at a high rate because it’s something humans need, or is violent content something that sells well because it’s just easy to sell. I mean, I’m not expressing myself well here. But there’s a big difference between the two.
