Contrariamente a lo que pueda parecer, ‘nacionalismo’ no es una palabra, es un verbo. Evidentemente, sé que gramaticalmente es un sustantivo, pero lo que quiero decir es que su esencia está en hacer algo. No es un objeto que se defina, es una acción, como una conversión religiosa, es algo que se hace a algo. El nacionalismo no se estudia; se hace, nacionalizando, creando conciencia de nación en la comunidad, etc. Una piedra es una piedra, sin necesidad de que haya alguien para arrojarla, pero no hay nacionalismo sin el proceso de nacionalizar.
No image has ever created a massive war, ideology, or crime. Unless you count people who kill painters and artists because they are afraid of their power, of course. The simple truth is that words and language are the best, if not the only, means to communicate worldviews. Images, as propaganda, are useful to reinforce a previously held belief, make a joke, resume more complex ideas, or may be used as “infographics” to make a point. However, those images would not be useful if the observer had no previous idea or reference about what they are talking about. For example, an antisemitic cartoon that stereotypes Jews as blood-sucking vampires is only useful if the person who sees this has already heard about those accusations from other places (his parents, friends, the education system, journalists, etc.). To an alien from another planet, the cartoon would be incomprehensible or ridiculous.
Recently (21/9/2015) Salon.com run an article title “I’m a pedophile, but not a monster” written by Todd Nickerson. There is nothing inherently wrong with a giving voice to, well, anyone, be it a monster or a non-monster, as long as they don’t bullshit you and you don’t swallow their lies. I have no problem talking about pedophilia (I said talking, not debating or opening a dialogue, whatever that means) but I’m not going to transform it into an identity issue or let pedophiles frame the discussion since the words they use (love, for example) don’t mean (and can’t mean) the same when we use them. Also, the “debate” isn’t about them and us, but between them and the children. We speak for the children since they can’t do it themselves. I’ve never heard an adult say “Damn it, I wish some 30-year-old dude had touched me when I was 8!” We are their guardians, and it would be immoral to forget our responsibility towards potential victims and believe it’s about us and our politics. And, you see, that (among other things) is what the shitty and immoral Salon article tries to do. Ignore that: It actually tries to make it about THEM, the pedophiles and their feelings. The article is so narcissistic it hurts.
TL,DR version: Lol games aren’t real, killing isn’t even the goal, it’s competing to win at something. Gore is just edgy window-dressing.
Although there are some issues that truly divide a nation, most public debates that go on forever have the same problem: They are not well defined, the meaning of words shift according to the current needs of the speaker, and there are invisible premises inside the problem/question. It is like that trap: “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” There is no way to answer that. Modern politics and social debates follow similar patterns, although not in such a crass or evident fashion. Among other reasons, this is why debates seem circular and eternal since the conclusion is already inserted in how the problem is defined.
The gaming mindset is completely different from the reading or watching a movie mindset. Your brain is behaving differently, and also expecting a different kind of stimulation. To analyze the content and effects of one medium by the rules and parameters of the other is a big mistake. And to analyze any of those mediums as if it were reality, your mental and ideological reality to boot, is criminal.