You bring up an interesting point which is how gore removes the plausible deniability of violence from death, a fascinating observation about human psychology w

You bring up an interesting point which is how gore removes the plausible deniability of violence from death, a fascinating observation about human psychology which I generally agree with. But I wonder if you're talking about something orthogonal to what GP is -- that is, you're talking about literal violence whereas they're talking about a more meta form of violence, if I'm understanding correctly. The meta form of violence they are talking about is simply the mechanism of "might makes right" -- if I am not misinterpreting them, it's the idea that violence comes not just from the force but from engagement with the opposing character as a hostile threat to be neutralized rather than an independent agent to be reconciled through diplomacy, and that this is a function of the game design. And so a non-violent game design would entail not just removing gore but removing these kinds of engagement styles completely. I'm not inclined to agree with this line of reasoning because I think it rests on faulty assumptions. And I think you call out the prime one pretty specifically in your comment: > People are unable to separate a response triggered by visual stimuli away from the actual intent of "violence" that usually is associated with such stimuli. It's a subtle but crucial distinction, and I think it gets to the core of what makes people make the conflation. Thanks for bringing it to the fore.