Support NeoGAF

[ab.aeterno]

And suicide rates have been increasing every year even though we are making sure that we are treating everyone like special snowflakes, so that means this method is even more effective right?

So, what, you're advocating that we don't attempt to stop bullies from bullying and instead tell victims to stop being victims or ignore the abuse they suffer? Because that's a legit frightening thought process. It's victim blaming. Imagine that argument applied to victims of rape, spousal abuse. "Well, these things happen." Eugh, gross.

How about instead of hand-wringing about the bullshit notion of kids not being tough enough because there being protected from abuse, we focus on stopping abuse?

Because it is abuse, the shit LGBT youth go through.

Also, [citation needed] on your stats, particularly when it comes to what I was talking about.

Edit: well, nevermind, guess I'll be waiting on that citation a while.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I believe that the american south as a whole is one of the most evil things on the earth currently. I know not everyone in the south is bad but as a whole I believe it is pure evil. People only care about themselves, hate everything besides the status quo, treat immigrants as animals not people, don't care about children who are suffering in other nations trying to find a better life, willing to shoot anything at will without thought.

I've lived in Arkansas my entire life and the pure hatred here is astounding. People literally live just to hate and judge here it's that bad.

I'm not saying it is the evilest thing but in my opinion based on living here it is pure evil and doesn't the though process of the area makes the world a worse not better place.

I've said similar things here before and gotten in trouble, but I don't think I worded my opinion carefully enough with supporting evidence, so I understood.

I think some people don't have a perspective on what it's like even to be sort of a minority in the deep south of America. It doesn't make me right, but I know the terror I felt for my life a lot of the time.

 

[kick51]

This round of publicity for depression and suicide really drives home the impotence and superficiality of social media outpourings. It's my belief that these people will "like" some suicide hotline number on facebook and go back to telling me to smile and cheer up in no time. The whole thing is triggered by someone within their empathy zone--a celeb who they never met and projected feelings of happiness onto. Yet, they've likely come across plenty of depressed people in their real lives whom they've written off because the person doesn't fit in somehow (i.e. is not a celebrity.) I'm surrounded by them and I've learned that they don't want you to get better, they want you to appear better. If you don't, they peace out because it's too much.

With the message hollowed out, all the "depression/suicide awareness" crap that went up on blogs and youtube today look like shitty cash + follower grabs (not to mention the "I give more fucks than everyone else" ego strokers.) I hope this is a catalyst for some people who want help. For me, it's another lesson on many people's limited capacities for understanding and empathy, the 100% real and undeniable hollowness of this existence.

 

[mhs004]

I've said similar things here before and gotten in trouble, but I don't think I worded my opinion carefully enough with supporting evidence, so I understood.

I think some people don't have a perspective on what it's like even to be sort of a minority in the deep south of America. It doesn't make me right, but I know the terror I felt for my life a lot of the time.

A good example happened in my town about a month ago, again I'm in North Central Arkansas. We had a small gay pride rally with about 40 people attending, I had work and couldn't go. When I got home all over my Facebook were people talking about chasing out the attendees, my customers bad mouthed them the next few weeks, heck even a co worker of mine wrote a article in the paper about "the gays taking over the town and we need to take it back."

I pretend to be a Christian at work so I don't' get in trouble with my customers and co worker to. I'm not scared or anything of people knowing but I don't want my family to be outcasted from their church and friends.

 

[twobear]

Americans pretend that their patriotism is ironic because they're embarrassed by the sincerity of their patriotism.

Conversely, Europeans are much more patriotic than they pretend to be.

 

[turtle553]

So, what, you're advocating that we don't attempt to stop bullies from bullying and instead tell victims to stop being victims or ignore the abuse they suffer? Because that's a legit frightening thought process. It's victim blaming. Imagine that argument applied to victims of rape, spousal abuse. "Well, these things happen." Eugh, gross.

How about instead of hand-wringing about the bullshit notion of kids not being tough enough because there being protected from abuse, we focus on stopping abuse?

Because it is abuse, the shit LGBT youth go through.

Also, [citation needed] on your stats, particularly when it comes to what I was talking about.

Edit: well, nevermind, guess I'll be waiting on that citation a while.

While it would be great if bullying stopped, I think people have to be careful about how it is addressed. By focusing so much on stopping bullies, the way the news is reported when a suicide happens it can come off that that was a reasonable solution to the problem.

Just telling kids to deal with it sucks, but it needs to be clear that suicide is not the proper response to being bullied.

 

[Opiate]

I feel like most of modern entertainment is something of a scam.

To be specific: many avenues of human pursuit have gotten objectively better at doing their job over the last century. Our medicine makes us live nearly twice as long; our cars move us from point A to point B an order of magnitude faster than horses did; our communications technology allows us to talk to people living halfway across the globe instantly; even our weapons of death, created by the military, are significantly more effective at killing people today than they were in 1900.

But I don't see a lot of evidence that we're more entertained than we were in 1900. Part of this might be down to an inability to measure the statistic, of course, but what little we can measure suggests we just aren't better off now than we were 100 years ago in this department (E.g. happiness levels have not substantively increased over that time period). Our constant need for bigger and better televisions or more and more amazing graphics or more megapixels on our cameras don't actually seem to be accomplishing their central purpose from a consumer's perspective; to make us happy and content.

 

[RP912]

what? since when is Kendrick a bastion for true MCing? he's about one peg above Drake. Kendrick has a nice flow and some good songs, but he is hardly doing anything new or different. if he's the last of a dying breed then let it die. because there's plenty of newer hiphop artist doing much more interesting work for the art form. either you don't listen to enough hiphop or your listening to too much Kendrick and not enough of what else is out there.

Dude I been listening to hip hop for the ages but seriously I haven't heard an album topping GKMC.

I'm just saying.

 

[RastaMentality]

I don't think everyone necessarily needs to come out if they don't want to and it's definitely disgusting when I see LGBT people chastise others for not coming out without looking at their situation. There's definitely some psychological benefits to coming out for many people but it's not a necessity to tell everybody. Actually it'd be best if everyone could just casually say they're dating whichever sex without any type of repercussions or shock but that's far off.

 

[dude]

I would rather live in a Theocracy built upon solidarity, mutual aid and communal living than in a logical science-centered culture lacking it. Given that this solidarity is universal, and unconditional.
I think people, especially western-educated people and geeks, over-emphasize the importance of logic and science to a healthy society and don't focus on the real issue that is leading our lives which is our utter solitude and lack of purpose, which science can never answer for.

 

[Cagey]

Yes, there are definitely mean spirited words you can use to negatively describe someone with muscle. Just like you can use the term "cishet" as a slur against cis-gendered heterosexuals. I think the term "cishet" does as much damage to cis-gendered heterosexuals as "meathead" does to muscular people, which is to say almost none at all. I've not met a single person in real life who felt getting in shape, or having some muscle on you was legitimately shameful or gross. Muscle is seen by our culture as being extremely sexy. While there is a point where some think it becomes "too much/gross" I don't think that effects the majority of people with muscle. I wouldn't say "thin shaming" exists just because there exists a level of thin that most people find aesthetically unpleasing. Nor would I say "muscle shaming" exists just because there exists a level of muscle that people find aesthetically unpleasing.

I think that the bolded are terms that are used far more frequently on internet message boards or blog-type websites than they are in real life. I've never seen those terms referenced outside of those realms: news media, print media, conversations with people.

 

[CornBurrito]

I feel like most of modern entertainment is something of a scam.

To be specific: many avenues of human pursuit have gotten objectively better at doing their job over the last century. Our medicine makes us live nearly twice as long; our cars move us from point A to point B an order of magnitude faster than horses did; our communications technology allows us to talk to people living halfway across the globe instantly; even our weapons of death, created by the military, are significantly more effective at killing people today than they were in 1900.

But I don't see a lot of evidence that we're more entertained than we were in 1900. Part of this might be down to an inability to measure the statistic, of course, but what little we can measure suggests we just aren't better off now than we were 100 years ago in this department (E.g. happiness levels have not substantively increased over that time period). Our constant need for bigger and better televisions or more and more amazing graphics or more megapixels on our cameras don't actually seem to be accomplishing their central purpose from a consumer's perspective; to make us happy and content.

Agreed so very much. We would be perfectly happy with black and white televisions if that is all we and our peers had access to. As an example.

 

[Opiate]

I would rather live in a Theocracy built upon solidarity, mutual aid and communal living than in a logical science-centered culture lacking it. Given that this solidarity is universal, and unconditional.
I think people, especially western-educated people and geeks, over-emphasize the importance of logic and science to a healthy society and don't focus on the real issue that is leading our lives which is our utter solitude and lack of purpose, which science can never answer for.

I think this is definitely a defensible position. Would you say that's true even if you were reasonably confident that the God worshiped by this theocracy (whatever that God or Gods may be) was false?

 

[Joni]

There are too many people on Earth. We need to find good, non genocidal ways to reduce the number. I like the general idea of discouraging having multiple kids.

 

[cyclonekruse]

Oftentimes (though certainly not always), people who get offended by a joke or even a word just need to grow thicker skins and be less sensitive.

Going to the bars or to a party is about the least enjoyable way to spend an evening. You know outside of being tortured and/or murdered.

Telling a person who is depressed that they're playing life on easy mode because they're a white male is less than helpful.

 

[CornBurrito]

I would rather live in a Theocracy built upon solidarity, mutual aid and communal living than in a logical science-centered culture lacking it. Given that this solidarity is universal, and unconditional.
I think people, especially western-educated people and geeks, over-emphasize the importance of logic and science to a healthy society and don't focus on the real issue that is leading our lives which is our utter solitude and lack of purpose, which science can never answer for.

I feel you can develop a sense of purpose without theocracy. But it probably takes faith in something.

 

[foxtrot3d]

I don't entirely disagree with the notion that transsexuals, i.e. people who undergo surgery to change their gender including the use of hormonal drugs, should possibly be treated with psychological treatment.

Spoiler

*Runs away in fear*

 

[John Kowalski]

I feel like most of modern entertainment is something of a scam.

To be specific: many avenues of human pursuit have gotten objectively better at doing their job over the last century. Our medicine makes us live nearly twice as long; our cars move us from point A to point B an order of magnitude faster than horses did; our communications technology allows us to talk to people living halfway across the globe instantly; even our weapons of death, created by the military, are significantly more effective at killing people today than they were in 1900.

But I don't see a lot of evidence that we're more entertained than we were in 1900. Part of this might be down to an inability to measure the statistic, of course, but what little we can measure suggests we just aren't better off now than we were 100 years ago in this department (E.g. happiness levels have not substantively increased over that time period). Our constant need for bigger and better televisions or more and more amazing graphics or more megapixels on our cameras don't actually seem to be accomplishing their central purpose from a consumer's perspective; to make us happy and content.

I would say this is a fair cost of having more and more people being able to work on art and entertainment they are passionate and which speak to them in a way nothing else does.

It's also interesting that you mention cameras, unlike the rest of the entertainment you mention they aren't meant to display someone else's work, but to create our own. That would put them on a whole another category, i think. They're more of a tool than the rest.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I don't entirely disagree with the notion that transsexuals, i.e. people who undergo surgery to change their gender including the use of hormonal drugs, should possibly be treated with psychological treatment.

Spoiler

*Runs away in fear*

Support this with something, please.

 

[Watcher]

Life is a scam

 

[EatinOlives]

Agreed so very much. We would be perfectly happy with black and white televisions if that is all we and our peers had access to. As an example.

But that logic would apply to nearly every form of evolving consumer technology. You could say the same thing of telephones before smartphones. People would be perfectly happy with rotary landlines if that is all we and our peers had access to. Same with 1920s-era motor vehicles.

Edit: To elaborate more, I don't agree with the notion that people would be satisfied with current technology if there weren't ads for new tech. People bitch and moan about the current tech they have all the time. There's always a need for better, smaller, sleeker, cheaper.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I feel like most of modern entertainment is something of a scam.

To be specific: many avenues of human pursuit have gotten objectively better at doing their job over the last century. Our medicine makes us live nearly twice as long; our cars move us from point A to point B an order of magnitude faster than horses did; our communications technology allows us to talk to people living halfway across the globe instantly; even our weapons of death, created by the military, are significantly more effective at killing people today than they were in 1900.

But I don't see a lot of evidence that we're more entertained than we were in 1900. Part of this might be down to an inability to measure the statistic, of course, but what little we can measure suggests we just aren't better off now than we were 100 years ago in this department (E.g. happiness levels have not substantively increased over that time period). Our constant need for bigger and better televisions or more and more amazing graphics or more megapixels on our cameras don't actually seem to be accomplishing their central purpose from a consumer's perspective; to make us happy and content.

I think humans have an innate level of dissatisfaction with whatever condition their lives are in. We always want more. I've known plenty of rich kids who were miserable or have a lust for even more entertainment/material goods. Sure, some level headed people are content with what they have if they are quite well to do, but I think overall most people are difficult to truly satisfy over the long term.

 

[DoktorEvil]

I feel like most of modern entertainment is something of a scam.

To be specific: many avenues of human pursuit have gotten objectively better at doing their job over the last century. Our medicine makes us live nearly twice as long; our cars move us from point A to point B an order of magnitude faster than horses did; our communications technology allows us to talk to people living halfway across the globe instantly; even our weapons of death, created by the military, are significantly more effective at killing people today than they were in 1900.

But I don't see a lot of evidence that we're more entertained than we were in 1900. Part of this might be down to an inability to measure the statistic, of course, but what little we can measure suggests we just aren't better off now than we were 100 years ago in this department (E.g. happiness levels have not substantively increased over that time period). Our constant need for bigger and better televisions or more and more amazing graphics or more megapixels on our cameras don't actually seem to be accomplishing their central purpose from a consumer's perspective; to make us happy and content.

I wouldn't call those things needs, rather than carefully marketed wants instead. we don't NEED anything except food, water, and shelter. The absolute bare necessities.

 

[CornBurrito]

But that logic would apply to nearly every form of evolving consumer technology. You could say the same thing of telephones before smartphones. People would be perfectly happy with rotary landlines if that is all we and our peers had access to. Same with 1920s-era motor vehicles.

I'd reread Opiate's post. Phones dont exist for the primary purpose of making us happier. They exist to make communication across space faster and easier. Smartphones do that much better than rotary phones. Modern vehicles function better to get us from A to B than 1920 vehicles.

But a 4K TV does not (in my opinion) make mankind more entertained or happier than black and white TVs. Instead I posit that most humans judge themselves based on their peers. I'm happy as long as I have roughly the same quality of life as my neighbor. I was certainly just as entertained and happy playing on my Gameboy Color than I was playing on my Nintendo DS.

I think humans have an innate level of dissatisfaction with whatever condition their lives are in. We always want more. I've known plenty of rich kids who were miserable or have a lust for even more entertainment/material goods. Sure, some level headed people are content with what they have if they are quite well to do, but I think overall most people are difficult to truly satisfy over the long term.

Personally I think most people would be satisfied with that they had as long as it matched what their neighbor had. I think a good deal of people probably want more only when they see others with more.

 

[kick51]

I feel like most of modern entertainment is something of a scam.

To be specific: many avenues of human pursuit have gotten objectively better at doing their job over the last century. Our medicine makes us live nearly twice as long; our cars move us from point A to point B an order of magnitude faster than horses did; our communications technology allows us to talk to people living halfway across the globe instantly; even our weapons of death, created by the military, are significantly more effective at killing people today than they were in 1900.

But I don't see a lot of evidence that we're more entertained than we were in 1900. Part of this might be down to an inability to measure the statistic, of course, but what little we can measure suggests we just aren't better off now than we were 100 years ago in this department (E.g. happiness levels have not substantively increased over that time period). Our constant need for bigger and better televisions or more and more amazing graphics or more megapixels on our cameras don't actually seem to be accomplishing their central purpose from a consumer's perspective; to make us happy and content.

I think it has more do with aging and perception. When I was a kid up through my early 20s, I thought the entertainment train would never stop and that I could keep jumping from new thing to new thing. Nowadays, I realize entertainment, from the creation of it to the consumption of it, exists to distract ourselves from the fact that we're going to die.

 

[turtle553]

But that logic would apply to nearly every form of evolving consumer technology. You could say the same thing of telephones before smartphones. People would be perfectly happy with rotary landlines if that is all we and our peers had access to. Same with 1920s-era motor vehicles.

In college, we read a book about technological evolution and it basically comes down to every advance just creates a new standard and doesn't make anyone happier.

The example I remember is the vacuum cleaner. Before it's invention carpets would be beaten once a month to clean and now because the vacuum made it easier, they had to be cleaned weekly. Really not benefiting anyone.

 

[twobear]

I'd reread Opiate's post. Phones dont exist for the primary purpose of making us happier. They exist to make communication across space faster and easier. Smartphones do that much better than rotary phones. Modern vehicles function better to get us from A to B than 1920 vehicles.

But a 4K TV does not (in my opinion) make mankind more entertained or happier than black and white TVs. Instead I posit that most humans judge themselves based on their peers. I'm happy as long as I have roughly the same quality of life as my neighbor. I was certainly just as entertained and happy playing on my Gameboy Color than I was playing on my Nintendo DS.

It also makes new ways for people to be unhappy. If I only have a 32" TV then my neighbour's 60" TV will make me jealous.

 

[RM8]

I would rather live in a Theocracy built upon solidarity, mutual aid and communal living than in a logical science-centered culture lacking it. Given that this solidarity is universal, and unconditional.
I think people, especially western-educated people and geeks, over-emphasize the importance of logic and science to a healthy society and don't focus on the real issue that is leading our lives which is our utter solitude and lack of purpose, which science can never answer for.

I can't think of any example where less logic and less science would make for a better society.

 

[DarkFlow]

Europeans really don't care about America as much as Americans (on here it seems) like to think. Do you guys think we just sit around all day talking about or slagging off America?

American's don't even know where Europe is half the time. That shows how much we care.

 

[Lazyslob]

people are way too thin skinned these days. everyone gets outraged at the smallest, most irrelevant things

 

[dude]

I feel you can develop a sense of purpose without theocracy. But it probably takes faith in something.

I agree it's possible. Solidarity and purpose can come from things other than religion. But if religion is the quickest way to get there, I'd rather take it.

I think this is definitely a defensible position. Would you say that's true even if you were reasonably confident that the God worshiped by this theocracy (whatever that God or Gods may be) was false?

I'm an atheist. So yes. I think people over play the bad sides of religion rather than focusing on its potential of bringing people together.

 

[Wreck-It Ralph]

Probably gonna get a lot of shit for this one, but what the hell.

First off, the struggle that the LGBT community faces is real, and I sympathize with them. I'm not trying to downplay that.

But I feel like some people have started labeling themselves obscure, possibly made-up words like "trigendered omnisexual" or whatever the hell just so they can feel unique and special.

This especially bothers me because I feel like a major point of the LGBT movement is to stop sticking labels on everyone and instead just treat each other as normal people regardless of sexuality or gender or whatever.

I blame Tumblr.

 

[foxtrot3d]

Support this with something, please.

*bites tongue*

Fine. I will preface what I am about to say that I don't personally care what a person does with their body, if they want to spend money of surgery to completely alter everything about them because it makes them feel happy then more power to them. That said, the notion that a person that believes that their gender is "wrong" and thus seek to mutilate their genitals and alter their chemical hormonal balance to be more in line with the opposite sex is the product of a healthy mind is something I have a difficult time accepting. If for instance we were to remove gender and a person sought surgery to look and be more like a cat or proclaimed themselves to be something they biologically and physically could not be, we'd likely call them crazy and suggest they seek psychological treatment. Yet, this opinion is considered controversial when applied to transsexuals and gender.

Again, that said if a person truly wants to look and act like a cat because it makes them happy, well then who am I to stop them?

 

[Opiate]

But that logic would apply to nearly every form of evolving consumer technology. You could say the same thing of telephones before smartphones. People would be perfectly happy with rotary landlines if that is all we and our peers had access to. Same with 1920s-era motor vehicles.

Edit: To elaborate more, I don't agree with the notion that people would be satisfied with current technology if there weren't ads for new tech. People bitch and moan about the current tech they have all the time. There's always a need for better, smaller, sleeker, cheaper.

But cell phones do indeed perform functions our rotary phones do not. From a primary function perspective, cell phones allow us to more rapidly and efficiently communicate with people than ever before.

Are they more entertaining, though? That's a different function we could discuss.

 

[EatinOlives]

I'd reread Opiate's post. Phones dont exist for the primary purpose of making us happier. They exist to make communication across space faster and easier. Smartphones do that much better than rotary phones. Modern vehicles function better to get us from A to B than 1920 vehicles.

But a 4K TV does not (in my opinion) make mankind more entertained or happier than black and white TVs. Instead I posit that most humans judge themselves based on their peers. I'm happy as long as I have roughly the same quality of life as my neighbor. I was certainly just as entertained and happy playing on my Gameboy Color than I was playing on my Nintendo DS.

You're taking a very utilitarian approach to smartphones and vehicles. Many smartphones are bought purely for their entertainment value, satisfaction, or otherwise "gotta have it" consumerism. It's not at all a matter of simple communication. There are also very many luxury cars and tons of vehicles are appealing as "fun to drive". Their technological advancement in actual utility of course does not go amiss, but there is still very much a consumerist entertainment value to that technology as well.

The bolded is very much anecdotal, I don't think it applies at all as a universal rule. As much as I liked gaming in the 90s (to the point where I'm collecting genuine SNES cartridges even though Virtual Console would be far cheaper), I can most definitely confirm that I'm happier with gaming as a form of entertainment today than I was back then. I have a gigantic amount of games at my disposal thanks to the explosion of digital distribution and the proliferation of independently-developed games that explore a vastly higher amount of genres and concepts that were never possible before. I have a far bigger access to highly entertaining games that significantly elaborate on genres that I enjoyed as a kid back then. I can definitely say I'm more entertained today than I was before.

 

[CornBurrito]

people are way too thin skinned these days. everyone gets outraged at the smallest, most irrelevant things

On the other hand, people can be painfully dismissive of other human beings' feelings.

Saying the word "nigger"? Obviously not acceptable. I think people only find this so unacceptable because of the extreme negative social sanctions you get for saying it, and not because people are actually less racist today than in the past.

Saying words like "fag"? People will argue this is ok and I think this is because they either don't empathize with gay people, or didn't face negative social sanctions for saying it.

Saying words like "tranny?" Now you are dealing with an even smaller minority, and one very few people sympathize with. And almost no social sanctions when you use such a word. So you'll get many people saying that transsexuals and those offended by the word simply need to "grow thicker skin."

I honestly think the "thin skin" argument is used by people to justify not giving a fuck about the feelings of other people. And I don't think how they could come up with a defense for why certain words are ok but some others aren't, other than that they don't want to face the negative social sanctions that come with saying some words.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

*bites tongue*

Fine. I will preface what I am about to say that I don't personally care what a person does with their body, if they want to spend money of surgery to completely alter everything about them because it makes them feel happy then more power to them. That said, the notion that a person that believes that their gender is "wrong" and thus seek to mutilate their genitals and alter their chemical hormonal balance to be more in line with the opposite sex is the product of a healthy mind is something I have a difficult time accepting. If for instance we were to remove gender and a person sought surgery to look and be more like a cat or proclaimed themselves to be something they biologically and physically could not be, we'd likely call them crazy and suggest they seek psychological treatment. Yet, this opinion is considered controversial when applied to transsexuals and gender.

Again, that said if a person truly wants to look and act like a cat because it makes them happy, well then who am I to stop them?

So, the South Park argument.

You use terms like "mutilate their genitals" that I'm pretty sure are blocking you from completely understanding. You're framing their thoughts in the way you can relate to it, which isn't going to help you to understand people who feel different than you.

 

[RM8]

*bites tongue*

Fine. I will preface what I am about to say that I don't personally care what a person does with their body, if they want to spend money of surgery to completely alter everything about them because it makes them feel happy then more power to them. That said, the notion that a person that believes that their gender is "wrong" and thus seek to mutilate their genitals and alter their chemical hormonal balance to be more in line with the opposite sex is the product of a healthy mind is something I have a difficult time accepting. If for instance we were to remove gender and a person sought surgery to look and be more like a cat or proclaimed themselves to be something they biologically and physically could not be, we'd likely call them crazy and suggest they seek psychological treatment. Yet, this opinion is considered controversial when applied to transsexuals and gender.

Again, that said if a person truly wants to look and act like a cat because it makes them happy, well then who am I to stop them?

The thing is, we know people who are genuinely male or female can end up in a different genre body-wise. This is not about accepting it or not at a personal level. What do you think about people who are born with a mix of male and female genitals? Should we ask you beforehand which genre we should assign to them? (I'm not trying to sound rude, just putting it in perspective - there's no room for your or my opinion in these cases).

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

I think that the modern video game market is largely based on semi-depressed people, seeking escapism, who are trapped in a viscous cycle wherein they spend so much time gaming they don't have any real accomplishments.

VR will probably cause a crash.

 

[CornBurrito]

*bites tongue*

Fine. I will preface what I am about to say that I don't personally care what a person does with their body, if they want to spend money of surgery to completely alter everything about them because it makes them feel happy then more power to them. That said, the notion that a person that believes that their gender is "wrong" and thus seek to mutilate their genitals and alter their chemical hormonal balance to be more in line with the opposite sex is the product of a healthy mind is something I have a difficult time accepting. If for instance we were to remove gender and a person sought surgery to look and be more like a cat or proclaimed themselves to be something they biologically and physically could not be, we'd likely call them crazy and suggest they seek psychological treatment. Yet, this opinion is considered controversial when applied to transsexuals and gender.

Again, that said if a person truly wants to look and act like a cat because it makes them happy, well then who am I to stop them?

It seems like you haven't read any actual opinions from experts on the subject. Maybe you should do that? The fact that you compare transgenderism with wanting to be a cat is quite frankly insulting. Yes we'd call someone who wanted to look like a cat and be a cat "crazy." There's substantial evidence you have easy access to that suggests transgenderism isn't a mental disorder, or something to be treated with some therapy. Your opinion is controversial when applied to gender and transsexuals because it is wrong, factually speaking, and harmful.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

The thing is, we know people who are genuinely male or female can end up in a different genre body-wise. This is not about accepting it or not at a personal level. What do you think about people who are born with a mix of male and female genitals? Should we ask you beforehand which genre we should assign to them? (I'm not trying to sound rude, just putting it in perspective - there's no room for your or my opinion in these cases).

Right on.

I feel like it's stubbornness to know we can hormonally alter our gender but still feel like changing it is some sort of unnatural thing. We can infer from that that gender is not immutable.

 

[Feep]

I would rather live in a Theocracy built upon solidarity, mutual aid and communal living than in a logical science-centered culture lacking it. Given that this solidarity is universal, and unconditional.
I think people, especially western-educated people and geeks, over-emphasize the importance of logic and science to a healthy society and don't focus on the real issue that is leading our lives which is our utter solitude and lack of purpose, which science can never answer for.

Perhaps, but both of these assumptions are not what we find in the real world. Religious theocracy ends up corrupting and oppressing, and logical science-centered culture does not generally lack those things.

 

[dude]

I can't think of any example where less logic and less science would make for a better society.

I don't think science or logic has anything to do with a better society. As most, they can make aspects of our lives better, but they do not give us happier lives or a better society. I believe a good society should give us human solidarity, a sense of community and a sense of cultural purpose. All of these could also be achieved in a theocratic or heavily religious society with almost no notion of modern science or logic.

Perhaps, but both of these assumptions are not what we find in the real world. Religious theocracy ends up corrupting and oppressing, and logical science-centered culture does not generally lack those things.

It's true that theocracies tend to be oppressive and corrupt, but there is also a matter of demonization of religious societies that goes on in many western societies. People reject even the good religion has to offer and rather go against it as a whole in the name of logic and science. I think our society does lack those values - We live in a constant state of lack of purpose, solidarity and lack of kinship with our fellows. I would rather religion grow stronger in the western world if that means those values will be more prominent in our lives.

 

[Deified Data]

I would rather live under a monarch or dictator who closely mirrored my own worldview and political beliefs than a democratically elected leader who doesn't.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

I would rather live under a monarch or dictator who closely mirrored my own worldview and political beliefs than a democratically elected leader who doesn't.

The key to being a good dictator is to either convince the people that your believes match theirs or that theirs match yours. I agree with this sentiment, as democracy, at least in the United States, has begun to cause some stagnation.

 

[Freezie KO]

I don't think science or logic has anything to do with a better society. As most, they can make aspects of our lives better, but they do not give us happier lives or a better society. I believe a good society should give us human solidarity, a sense of community and a sense of cultural purpose. All of these could also be achieved in a theocratic or heavily religious society with almost no notion of modern science or logic.

Good luck when you get sick and have to go to a doctor in a theocratic society that has "almost no notion of modern science or logic".

 

[The Technomancer]

I would rather live under a monarch or dictator who closely mirrored my own worldview and political beliefs than a democratically elected leader who doesn't.

I go back and forth on this kind of thing. The main thing keeping me from subscribing to it is human fallibility, both my own and the dictators. What if my vision of society isn't the best after all? What if the dictator changes or develops into something I no longer support?

 

[RM8]

I don't think science or logic has anything to do with a better society. As most, they can make aspects of our lives better, but they do not give us happier lives or a better society. I believe a good society should give us human solidarity, a sense of community and a sense of cultural purpose. All of these could also be achieved in a theocratic or heavily religious society with almost no notion of modern science or logic.

Actually, science has (in real life, and not in any hypothetical utopian setting) shown us that - nope, black people aren't sub-humans. That gay people are not possessed by evil forces and that they're not just mentally affected. That people with schizophrenia shouldn't be tortured and that they're not seeing ghosts. Science and logic allow us to manage our resources better, and live longer, healthier lives. I really don't understand where you're coming from, and especially I don't see why you would think a theocracy would get everything right when we know it has never happened. I mean, right now wars are happening because of theocracies clashing one with another.

 

[EatinOlives]

But cell phones do indeed perform functions our rotary phones do not. From a primary function perspective, cell phones allow us to more rapidly and efficiently communicate with people than ever before.

Are they more entertaining, though? That's a different function we could discuss.

I kinda touched on this in my previous post, but yes I do acknowledge that these technologies have an actual use different from simply "entertainment". But within these technologies there's also a certain element of entertainment/luxury that goes beyond simple technological need and goes into consumerist practices far more reflective of the entertainment industry than the "tool" industry (for lack of a better word).

But I'm kinda getting beside the point here. The original post you wrote talks about whether things that are purely for entertainment are actually more entertaining today than they were before, and if they make us happier. I think it depends largely on the type of entertainment you're seeking. In terms of gaming, as I said in my previous post I would say yes, gaming is more entertaining today and I am a happier game consumer now than I was before. But if we look at film, is that the case? Do the technology advancements in high-definition cameras, vastly improved special effects, advances in stunts, make-up, lighting, improved cinematography techniques, improved methods of distribution, does that make us "happier"?

There's two sides to this I think. If we talk about the very first implementation of "moving pictures", you know that period of time where "movies" was only a silent black-and-white image of a train moving toward the camera, people were genuinely more entertained back then. I doubt Guardians of the Galaxy made people gasp and move out of the way of a flying spaceship because they genuinely thought it was going to literally run into them. I mean, that's a level of immersion that we're likely never replicating. So maybe that element of spectacle, novelty, and genuine immersion may not be the case now. I mean, last year people were genuinely bored watching Man of Steel despite the spectacle that it provided. People now have watched similar films so much that they're now looking for other things. They're not anymore looking for the train to come at them, they're now looking at plot progression, pacing, dialogue, etc.

On the other side, though, film buffs will probably enjoy all the improvements of the industry. They'll probably enjoy the expansion of genres, the significant addition of depth and breadth of films, the expansion of the industry leading to many different movies about many different topics, each with a different point of view. They probably like the fact that there's now a selection wide enough that they can get completely different experiences depending on their mood at their home theaters today, whereas in the 60s you had the handful of films some distributor fed to your region and you had to be in the theater at the appointed times. I think that would directly lead to a better entertainment, and depending on who you ask that may actually make them happier.

I think ultimately it comes down to this: there's an element where things need to be constantly evolving and improving to keep capturing that "magic" people feel when they first experience a new form of entertainment, and there's another element where people can look back on the existing improvements of these forms of entertainment and agree that objectively, the convenience and technology is vastly superior today than it was before. If you ask someone who focuses on the first element, I think they'll make the conclusion you're making, and if you ask someone who focuses on the second they'll make the conclusion I made originally.

EDIT: I know my post is long as shit but I have to add another example: the anime industry only a few decades ago consisted of an extremely small niche in the United States, since there was little hope of a translation of the vast majority of animes being produced for Japan and often times anime fans had to buy very expensive VHS tapes of dubbed anime that contained only 3-4 episodes each. Today you log into Hulu/Netflix/Funimantion/Amazon and you have vast catalogs of animes of many different genres for a very small fee. I can definitely say that anime fans are more entertained and happy today than they were before.

 

[Coriolanus]

I feel like most of modern entertainment is something of a scam.

To be specific: many avenues of human pursuit have gotten objectively better at doing their job over the last century. Our medicine makes us live nearly twice as long; our cars move us from point A to point B an order of magnitude faster than horses did; our communications technology allows us to talk to people living halfway across the globe instantly; even our weapons of death, created by the military, are significantly more effective at killing people today than they were in 1900.

But I don't see a lot of evidence that we're more entertained than we were in 1900. Part of this might be down to an inability to measure the statistic, of course, but what little we can measure suggests we just aren't better off now than we were 100 years ago in this department (E.g. happiness levels have not substantively increased over that time period). Our constant need for bigger and better televisions or more and more amazing graphics or more megapixels on our cameras don't actually seem to be accomplishing their central purpose from a consumer's perspective; to make us happy and content.

We have more access to quality entertainment of ages past than ever before, so that's kind of a hard sell. If limiting the scope solely to quality entertainment being produced... eh, I dunno. While there is no Hemingway or Twain currently walking around, we did recently lose Vonnegut and Saramago, plus people like Wes Anderson, Cormac McCarthy and Richard Linklater are doing absolutely amazing work. Heck, there are probably dozens more that I've simply never heard about due to their works not being available in english.

I'm interpreting "happy and content" kinda broadly, obviously.
Plus, you're no doubt aware of the human trend to think that "everything today is shit", so have you balanced for that?