I am genuienly curious, you have a definition of gore…that is not fundamentally based in a human realizing something is very, very wrong with another living being?
Like… your blood is generally supposed to stay inside you. Blood is generally considered more gory the more of it there is.
I guess I watched enough videos from Ukraine and Gaza these past 3 years to be more desensitized. That wasn’t that bad – and key point – relative to what else I’ve seen. My partner also works in trauma medicine, so we discuss a lot of stuff.
In some respects, I think conservatives who have a fetish for guns should witness the true damage they inflict.
Alright. Gore is the inside squishy bits of the body you shouldn’t see: muscles, torn flesh, whatnot. You see someone’s brains or a stump where an appendage was just separated, that’s gore.
Blood is… well… blood. In context it’s alarming, but ultimately it’s just a bunch of opaque red liquid.
the blood doesn’t spray everywhere or all over him, but you can tell a lot gushed out quickly and goes out of view of the camera….
it’s really fast and mostly you notice his shirt moving suddenly
Agreed that people draw the lines in different ways. For me personally, the video is bloody, not gory. It’d be gory if there was viscera clearly visible.
Regardless, can see it being a traumatic image for some. But on the other hand, a lot of us are desensitized.
For anyone wondering: it’s not gory as such, but it is significant in that way that tells our lizard brains something undeniably bad just happened.
I…what?
How else would you define ‘gory’?
I am genuienly curious, you have a definition of gore…that is not fundamentally based in a human realizing something is very, very wrong with another living being?
Like… your blood is generally supposed to stay inside you. Blood is generally considered more gory the more of it there is.
I guess I watched enough videos from Ukraine and Gaza these past 3 years to be more desensitized. That wasn’t that bad – and key point – relative to what else I’ve seen. My partner also works in trauma medicine, so we discuss a lot of stuff.
In some respects, I think conservatives who have a fetish for guns should witness the true damage they inflict.
I mean, the phrase “blood and gore” sort of lays out the distinction.
… No, what I am saying is that it does not, for me, and I am asking for clarificatiom.
Alright. Gore is the inside squishy bits of the body you shouldn’t see: muscles, torn flesh, whatnot. You see someone’s brains or a stump where an appendage was just separated, that’s gore.
Blood is… well… blood. In context it’s alarming, but ultimately it’s just a bunch of opaque red liquid.
Ah.
That makes sense!
Thank you.=D
the blood doesn’t spray everywhere or all over him, but you can tell a lot gushed out quickly and goes out of view of the camera….
it’s really fast and mostly you notice his shirt moving suddenly
So to you, only blood spatter is gory?
Not actually just watching something like 1/3 to 1/2 his blood exit his body in maybe 3 seconds tops?
Like if a guy shat out all his intenstines, but … they went off camera, neatly into a bucket… that wouldn’t be gory?
Again I am just curious about this, different people are disgusted by different things, draw the lines in different ways I guess.
Agreed that people draw the lines in different ways. For me personally, the video is bloody, not gory. It’d be gory if there was viscera clearly visible.
Regardless, can see it being a traumatic image for some. But on the other hand, a lot of us are desensitized.