Alright, you read the article...do you agree with Gibson's arguments about paintball? Why or why not? Are there other activities which, in your opinion, train people for combat or act as recruitment tools because they give people false visions of combat?
On a second reading, I realize that he's not really saying it "trains" us for combat, but that it seeks to explore some sort of fantasy version which can be mistaken for the real thing. He paints paintballers as folks who are deluded about what really happens in the course of their experiences.
What do you think about it?
35 comments:
I agree with Gibson's comments. I don't know from experience but it seems like paintball is combat minus people getting hurt or killed. He talked about how you are holding a gun, walking up to someone and pulling the trigger. This immitates combat. The reason people do this I think is becasue it is not real. Anyone could shoot someone in the head with a paintball becasue they know that person won't die. If you were holding a real gun and shot it at someone you would know that the person you shot at would die and that you would see blood all over the place. If paintball was real no one would do it because most people do not want to see people dying or blood. The only other thing that i can think of that immitates combat is laser tag. It is pretty much paintball but it uses lasers instead of paint.
I think us as male Humans naturally search for ways to make war with out purposefully hurting some one. I think that traces back to are roots in medieval and even earlier in history. The Knights used tournaments as a means of training for combat and even squires were involved in tournies to help teach them the ways of combat. Even as kids we play war games and pretend to be in the army. I think it's a natural male insentience to play war games. I think paintball is something that just appeals to a male and yes it might seem like fun in games, but I think all of us really know that combat is not all fun and games.
I do not agree with Gibson at all. I have been playing paintball since 2001 and not once have i felt like i was in a war like Nam. When I first started playing i never thought that. Another note i would like to add is that i play tournament style paintball now which has nothing to do with big scale fields and woods. Paintball does have some stuff that pertain to war like when we shoot someone we call it a "Kill", and yes the objective in a regular game of paintball is to shoot everyone on the other team. When paintball first came out maybe it was to represent war i dont no i was not born then nor was i an original player, but i do know that paintball does not take place in the woods anymore it has moved on to smaller, quicker fields, where the bunkers are "Airball Bunkers". Gibson only shows the reader the woods side of paintball. The style of paintball i play and is also the more popular one like i said is nothing like that. What Gibson did not show the reader this side even though this style was just starting out when he was writing that essay. Another reason i do not agree with Gibson is that a man proves himself when playing this game. That is obsured yes more men play the sport but i have never felt like i proved myself by shooting a person with a paintball. I could go on forever about this subject but i am going to stop here. www.warpig.com will give you all sorts of info on paintball.
I agree with Gibson’s article for the most part. People who have not experienced real warfare fantasize about combat because it gives them a way to feel like they have satisfied the demands of masculinity. What I found interesting was that no Vietnam veterans actually wanted to participate in such an activity. I think this implies that when a man actually meets the standards of masculinity, he finds he is in a worse state than he was before. It seems that living up to the macho-man ideal means destroying one’s sense of humanity. If all individuals understood what it is sacrificed in order to be considered a ‘real man,’ I doubt paintball would be very popular. Gibson also made the point that the reason paintball is so popular is that it evokes a childlike experience. The ability to play a grown-up game in a realistic way without the grown-up consequences appeals to a lot of people.
Another activity that trains people for combat is paramilitary video games. Video games allow people to enter a fantasy world that imitates the experience of being in actual combat. Obviously, there are no real consequences for shooting someone in a game, so combat becomes entertainment.
i agree with gibsons comments in a sense that paintball simulates the general idea of war by making the objective to shoot people on the other team. however, i dont think people play paintball because they want to be in war and i also dont think that it shows and accurate portrayal of what war is like. i also dont think that just because someone enjoys holding and shooting guns, doesnt mean they actually would like to do that in a real life setting. basiclly, men are drawn to the competitive side of the game, and probably use it as a way to release agression.
I never really thought of paintball in the way that it is a version for men to act and fulfill their need for 'combat'. The more and more i read he confinced me that it does seem like a way for the men who never went to war to feel like they get the same experience. Also some men probably feel like it is their duty to fight in a war and if they never got to paintball does that for them. I also agreed with his argument that it was a way for older men to play and act as children again because in the world they live in they 'are not suppose to play anymore'. Playing paintball in fun adult play to those men. That is just a womens point of view even though some men probably desagree, I agree with his argument.
I agree with Gibson's comments. Paintball is a way for men to play war but not deal with real repercussions of it. Its all fun and games when the bullets aren't real,which in my opinion a kind of mockery of real combat. If i were a war veteran, i know i wouldn't participate in paintball. Going through all the motions of killing, dressing up like soldiers, and shooting guns at other people with intentions to "kill" just doesnt seem appealing to me. I dont understand how the worst expression of hatred that we have faced in this world for years known as war, has turned into a game that people find enjoyable or fun.
I agree with what was said in the reading. Paintball all in all is just a knock off of what real combat in war is really like. However it does give the people playing that sense that they are really in a war by 1. being on a team just like the division of countries in a war 2. The obviousness of carrying a gun like combat in war and 3. Wearing the gear like they were really hiding from the enemy in the war. And after people get "killed" by people on the other team, they shake their hands after the game and say good game. I war you would never shoot someone and kill them and be able to shake their hand after doing so becuse of the fact that they really are dead.
I think that paint ball is similar to training that might be used by the military. I think it is this aspect of the game that draws people to play the sport. The author is right in a lot of ways that the people that play paint ball often in their head think about it from a military perspective. The article was kind of outdated from what a lot of modern paint ball has become. Paint ball is not always played in a woods or some elaborate movie set in Hollywood, CA. Today paint ball has become more of an organized sports where there are actually professional teams that compete for thousands of dollars. So yea i guess i do agree in some ways from playing paint ball before that it could easily be conceived as combat training. I would also agree with the Gibson that this is what attracts most people to the game.
I agree with Gibson in that fact that paintball does seem like something that people do to experience a warlike atmosphere. I never really thought about how paintball could be so similar to war and the thought of killing a person. When he talks about going up to someone and pulling the trigger and having them "die" on the paintball field that is so much like the real thing that I could see how it is comparable to war.
Another activity I think that is similar to paintball and that is also warlike is lasertag. I think it is a lot less real then paintball is because you do not feel anything when you are shot with the laser, but is like combat in a similar sense.
I do believe that for some of the people who play it they do it for the rush and for the feeling of being in combat, but it is still so far from the real thing that that is why they do it.
I agree with Gibson. Paintball to me has always seemed like it would be combat/battle without people actually dying. It's violence without death or repercussions. If you try to place yourself within his story, it's the same thing as being in a battle. You're being hunted while hunting others. I view it was the same thing.
I agree with Gibson although I have never thought of paintball games as a war but without really killing someone. It makes sense that it would fulfill someones desire to really be like the guys in the action movies. I think it is another way and something different to just have fun. Basically anyone can paintball and at any age. It is really pretty much like the real thing except you do not have to deal with death. Anything along the lines of shooting someone with something but without the consequences of death can be considered immitating combat.
I agree with Gibson's view of paintball substituting for real combat. People go to great lengths to get the best gear, the most advanced guns and try really hard to look the part of a real veteran. Paintball goes through the motions of combat without anyone actually being killed.. you have to locate your target, be stealthy in going up to them and then you have to pull the trigger.
I agree with Gibson.
I think my favorite part about this essay was about how he was talking about how kids are able to play with guns and adults are not.
I think that paint ball allows men to play out their warrior fantasies safely.
I do agree with Gibsons comments, and that it is easily used as a training tool. It brings up almost primal and instinctive behaviors. Gives us a sense of power, what it feels to be almost immortal, and put into a life or death experience, in a controlled setting. Laser tag, and poss. 1st person shooting games, can also bring up a rush of immortality, primal feelings and instincts. The only difference between the two is that you won't die.
I definitely agree with Gibson to an extent. I agree more with the "fantasy war" that he compares paintball too. I've only played a few times but the times I have, my friends and I were in full camo and playing in the woods. Even though there were 6 of us playing 3v3 it was very tactical. None of my friends from home have been in the military nor did we know many people in the military. Since we lacked this experience, I guess you could say that paintball and airsoft were our two ways of a "fantasy war"
I agree with Gibson's comments. I have played paintball, and when I was playing I felt like I was in a war situation. Paintball is a sport where you try to shoot the other team without killing them. The only thing about this is that in real life once your shot your dead. So playing paintball is far from reality. Another way to help train for war could be first person shooter video games. People play these and think that they are at war, and get creative ideas in their heads. Both paintball and video games, as much as they seem like they would help training, are really far from how war really is.
I agree with what Gibson is saying in the fact that people do it because they know that it cant kill people. He talks about how these guys on his team are from previous military training or military school and one guy used to play pro football which is often referred to as going to war. These guys want to go back to that combative warlike atmosphere and paintball is a good way to go back and pretend that this game is serious like their pasts. Another example would be video games where people pretend to go to war and kill others because it is pretend. They enjoy the imaginative idea of war and combat.
I agree with what Gibson had to say. I know from playing paintball first had that is pretty much fighting and combat without the killing. It is a way for kids and adults to get their fix or war and fighting without having to do it for real. I dont know of any other training excercizes but paintball seems to be a good one. There is that element in every human whether they like to believe it or not that wants to fight and wants to be in combat. Paintball is that place whether people can go and get that feeling.
I have some mixed feelings on Gibson's arguments about paintball. I feel that with the proper instruction and such, a military training exorcise can be done with paintball. And this may be a better training tool than say with a water guns or no guns at all. However I don't believe that when a few guys and or girls go out with their friends and play paintball they are in any way training for actual combat. Gibson doesn't mean that it is actually "training", but isn't training or any kind of activity meant to be a parallel or simulation of what you're training for? So training is some respect is creating a fantasy version or whatever you are training for. On a side note, i like watching the the histiry channel, and viewed a special on basic combat training. The military at one point used only round targets to train soldiers but switched to human targets because in actual combat some men were hesitating to fire on enemy troops. The switch supposedly resolved the issue. Even though someone likes paintball, I don't feel they are any more or lass violent then anyone else necessarily. The people who make a case for those that believe activites like paintball promote violet acts, had issues in the first place in my opinion.
I think that Gibson has a good argument because yes paintballing in some ways would be a great training for combat but the people don't have to worry about actually dying they are just scared to get hit by a ball and develop a welt with hurts so understandable. i think that it is a great way for men and women to let out violence or whatever without hurting people i mean where else could you go around shooting people and it would be alright. i agree that some people never got the chance to go to war or even if that didn't want to so it does give them a small scale version or fake sense of war. i do think that some of the guns they were talking about were a bit ridiculous like the rifles lets keep it simple.
I agree with Gibson's arguments. People watch war movies and even just gruesome movies like the Saw series because like watching and participating in a make believe violence and competition. I think its human nature and some people enjoy it more or less than others. Personally i think how he described the original way to play paintball sounded a lot more fun and interesting. The way he described the new and improved guns and clothes sounded a little ridiculous how similar it was to real military standards. I thought it was interesting that a very low percentage of Vets play paintball. Because of this, i think that paintballers may have a false idea of fun regarding actual war.
I agree with Gibson's argument, paintball is like war and battle except with little or no consequenses for shooting someone. In real war you shootsomeone they are usually dead or will be injured. If you get shot by a paint ball then you may get a briuse but nothing to serious. It is like a more realistic video game, if you get shot then you go off to the sie until a new game. Everything except for the seath and hurt is imitated in paintball and i feel it gives people an adrenilan rush to do something so close to war.
I can't agree with all of Gibson's arguments. Not every person that plays paintball really thinks of it as combat. I think some people look at it that way and enjoy it. Others find it to be just a fun game, like a video game in real life. I agree with the quote he included in his essay by Brian Sutton Smith "games permit us to express our desires and our contradictions in ways that are not possible within the conventional boundaries of society". We should be able to participate in any games as long as no one is getting hurt. I guess in the end it all depends on how you see it, as a game or as a renactment of real combat.
I agree with Gibson paintball is war without killing. Though I think as the one man said they really understand death more than people who don't because they can walk off the field but if it was real they would be dead. Though I don't think everyone does think this way, most people probably just see it as a game. It goes back to the roots of men, hunting, being stronger and smarter than the next person. So in a way I feel its a natural thing that people want to do is this. To play hunt because of instincts, which help people survive.
I agree and disagee with Gibson. First, i think that paintball is a wayto teach someone combat as far as strategy goes, but when it comes to the real deal there are so many factors that play into it making it much different from a game of paintball. Paintball can help team work and strategy but there is no ral risk in paintball like there is in real life.
I agree with Gibson's statements about paintballing to a certain extent. Paintball trains for combat but is not completely like the real thing. Veterans say paintball reminds them of war which has to mean that is very similar to war at least to spark a memory of it. Paintball only has guns no grenades or tanks or anything of that matter. One example of another combat training is a squirt gun fight. This has generally the same concept of paintball except you need to have closer range then with a paintball. The actual military uses paintball to try and simulate what actual combat is like. The ROTC here also uses paintball for training in school shootings so God forbid another school shooting happens like Virginia Tech.
I think his visions and his points are valid. Inside a man, there definitely is a need to feel a rush, a sea of endorfins in being in some sort of combat. Even with me, I don't care for war one bit, but when I'm in something that simulates it I get a rush. I think there are many false portrayals of a combative experience. In real life if you get shot in the head, there's no coming back. That's it, you're done. In paintball, it's just fun until you're shot, but it's not fair because eventually you can come back. Personally, I'm just scared to death of war or even harming another human being. I think it's just sick to want to kill someone.
I think Gibson's comments are prettt accurate. I think that people definitly benefit from it when it comes to learning combat. I think that most Vietnam Veterans don't take part in paintball because it brings up bad memories for them. It is also a total different experience then real war. I never have played paintball but i Know that it is much different then using a real gun on a real enemy. War is not a game whereas paintball is. Everyone knows going into a paintball game that nobody is meant to get hurt where war is a different story.
I agreed with Gibson's article because paint ball is a very masculine game that men play to simulate war. It takes all of the masculine qualitities of war and puts it into a game where no one is seriously hurt. I think its a great way for men to simulate war but i do not believe it is viable as a military teaching tool. In the armed forces we use blanks when going through exercises and its alot scarier getting blanks shot at you instead of paintballs.
Until I read this I never really thought about paintball being like combat. I do think that paintball is a way for men to have their own little war like ways. It is kind of like video games, you can shoot at people and not actually hurt anyone. It is a way for men to be men with out facing the consequences of actually hurting or killing anyone.
In a way, I agree with Gibson's argument about paintball. I haven't played paintball since I was like a freshman in high school, but I know that when I played, I did sometimes pretend like I was in a war, b/c my friends and I played out in the woods with hideouts and we all wore camouflage clothes. And I can recall us making comments when we were playing like "Charlie's everywhere", "hit the deck", stuff like that. In paintball, getting a "kill" was like shooting a killing somebody in real life.
I mean I was younger then and didn't really think about it, but at that time I was starting to get into watching war movies and the things that I seen on the movies, I would use and say when I was playing paintball.
Other things that are like paintball are war games on the computer and video games.
Before I comment I must point out that I do not play paintball. On that note, I do believe people play the sport to escape reality, but not necessarily in a bad way. As the one man in the book pointed out, after working at a cash register for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, a release is often healthy. This could merely be an outlet to relieve stress, or just to get away for awhile. The game could be easily manipulated into an unhealthy fantasy world addiction, but I would guess that is not the case for many of its participants.
I agree with Gibson. I believe that adults play paintball to excape reality and feel like a child again. Also the dressing up makes them feel more like part of the game and prepared for combat. It gives people a chance to play dress-up, if you will, as adults.
Post a Comment