4 ms·

That article was last updated 2006 and does not take into account ISIS or Mexican drug cartel videos, which arguably meet your first definition and many would c

That article was last updated 2006 and does not take into account ISIS or Mexican drug cartel videos, which arguably meet your first definition and many would consider snuff.

teddyh 6y ago
One could hardly make the argument that those videos were made to entertain anybody for their enjoyment. Terrorists make videos to terrorize, i.e. scare, people, not for people to enjoy.
- EE84M3i 6y ago
  Making the argument that is at least partially made for the entertainment of other terrorists doesn't strike me as outlandish. Personally I wouldn't make that argument though. Regardless my point was just that in my experience many would consider them 'snuff' even if it doesn't meet the exact technical definition.
  - teddyh 6y ago
    > my point was just that in my experience many would consider them 'snuff' even if it doesn't meet the exact technical definition. And those people would simply be wrong. I mean, let’s back up a bit. Why is it important whether or not “snuff” films exist? Because many people want to believe the common urban legends about it – i.e. that there exists an (be it ever so small) underground production and market for it, even though, by all accounts, this does not exist, and has never existed. Believing such urban legends helps people feel justifiably horrified and helps validate their cynicism; basically the same reason why many people believe many other urban legends. However, no movies fitting that particular model have ever been found to exist. If anyone wants to to be picky about the definition and claim that some movie or other fits the definition of “snuff”, or is “considered” to fit even though it doesn’t(!), this is only because they want to be able to say “see, snuff films exist!”, and thereby validate their preexisting belief in the urban legend. But this is a motte-and-bailey fallacy; it tries to defend the urban legend (which is hard) by trying to defend a technical definition of a word to be slightly wider than it really is (which is comparitively easier). Luckily, even though it is easier to defend, this latter position is still demonstrably wrong.

That article was last updated 2006 and does not take into account ISIS or Mexican drug cartel videos, which arguably meet your first definition and many would consider snuff.

teddyh 6y ago

One could hardly make the argument that those videos were made to entertain anybody for their enjoyment. Terrorists make videos to terrorize, i.e. scare, people, not for people to enjoy.

EE84M3i 6y ago
Making the argument that is at least partially made for the entertainment of other terrorists doesn't strike me as outlandish. Personally I wouldn't make that argument though. Regardless my point was just that in my experience many would consider them 'snuff' even if it doesn't meet the exact technical definition.
- teddyh 6y ago
  > my point was just that in my experience many would consider them 'snuff' even if it doesn't meet the exact technical definition. And those people would simply be wrong. I mean, let’s back up a bit. Why is it important whether or not “snuff” films exist? Because many people want to believe the common urban legends about it – i.e. that there exists an (be it ever so small) underground production and market for it, even though, by all accounts, this does not exist, and has never existed. Believing such urban legends helps people feel justifiably horrified and helps validate their cynicism; basically the same reason why many people believe many other urban legends. However, no movies fitting that particular model have ever been found to exist. If anyone wants to to be picky about the definition and claim that some movie or other fits the definition of “snuff”, or is “considered” to fit even though it doesn’t(!), this is only because they want to be able to say “see, snuff films exist!”, and thereby validate their preexisting belief in the urban legend. But this is a motte-and-bailey fallacy; it tries to defend the urban legend (which is hard) by trying to defend a technical definition of a word to be slightly wider than it really is (which is comparitively easier). Luckily, even though it is easier to defend, this latter position is still demonstrably wrong.