So shouldn't Spanish speakers start talking Hohokam then, or at least Apache? Just because a land used to be controlled by one culture, doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of thing.
I'm not trying to be hostile here. I really don't care what you speak with your family and neighbors, I actually enjoy living in a multicultural part of the world, and enjoy the idea of people passing their cultural ideas along. I still don't think linguistic Balkanization is healthy for society as whole. Its really easy to hate people you can't communicate with, especially when their values/culture are slightly different than yours. Here in Arizona we find MASSIVE amounts of hostility towards our Hispanic population (legal and not), I think that the linguistic and cultural insularity of parts of the Hispanic population contribute to this.
I see your point, but don't think its really applicable.
The actual governance of the state/city is in english, 80% of the population speaks English, and conducts all their language in it, English is the de facto language of the US. They choose to separate themselves from the main culture, and not visa versa.
Its not a happy fact, but some degree of assimilation is needed. If I were to move to Mexico City, I would at least attempt to learn more spanish, and if I can't be fluent, I'd try for at least being able to say common things like a tourist. I expect the same courtesy.
To haggle on this a bit... You CAN force small government on people, especially if you intentionally invade a community en masse with the implicit goal to manipulate their politics. Generally the politics of a community reflect that community, and thus when you, from the outside, choose to manipulate it, it will no long match thats communities morals and mores.
As for small government, it depends on what you mean. Lets say you go someplace with socialized medicine, and it is popularly mandated, and works for them. There exists dogmatic stances that say that this is big government at its worst, and it hurts "free markets" (as an ends to themselves). Now lets say there is an influx of small-government-freemarketers from outside who move there, becoming a unified voting block large enough to sway their votes, and thus banish their chosen "big government" for their idealistic smaller one, EVEN if this "big" government was working for them. This is a hypothetical of course, but a possibility.
I personally dislike the idea of small government for its own good(as do I big government), you could indeed force it on me. I only care for the communal (and individual) good as its own ends. If a "big government" program works for people, then let it stand. If it increases the general well being, then let it stand.
They're playing these sort of games because they're unhappy about their body image. So they create a new one in-game. [citation needed]
I've been playing video games since I was 6, am not overweight (6'4" 185lbs), and have no body issue problems. So... did I kill your premise yet?
I'd say these people who drink 30 protein shakes a day, and hang out with other half naked men talking about their pectoral muscles have a body image problem. Anyone actually obsessed with being FIT has a body image problem. I walk, can go jogging (if I didn't find it idiotic), often go on 15+ mile day hikes, so why should I be FITTER, when I'm fit enough to be healthy, and capable of carrying out my day to day activities? When anything becomes a way of life it is generally a cover for a deeper mental hang-up.
And yes, I play MMOs. Why? Because I enjoy it, and enjoy the company. Also, as stated, I've been playing games since I was 6, as have a lot of people. Gaming isn't really all that weird or aberrant anymore, why do we treat it so?
Look at the sales statistics of video games, its hard to be a fringe culture with that many people doing it.
To butt into this amusing dialogue. I would point to the use (and abuse) of the term "abuse". Can "abusing" pot, "abusing" video games, and "abusing" heroin/PCP/crack all be considered in the same class? The term itself is vague.
I'm a relatively happy and healthy (not athletic, but 6'4"/185lb), and I play MMOs mostly to socialize, not hide. Some of my old friends from high school play who I haven't actually seen in person for 12 years, so its a nice way to get together and hang out, especially when distance and schedules keep us from meeting in person that often. Probably still healthier, since we'd probably be meeting in the local pub.
If your definition of gaming includes the idea of hiding, then you have an unhealthy relationship with games. I've been playing video games since I was 6, and using the internet since I was eight, these are increasingly just becoming a way of life, much like television and books, to an increasing amount of the population. Is watching 2 hours of TV after work escapism? Is reading a novel? What about a nice solitary hike (not as exercise, but just to blow the stink off)? All of these are somewhat escapist, I suppose, but not necessarily unhealthy when taken in moderation. All of them have about the same value, and the same purpose.
Though I admit, sometimes I use both the hike and the games as an escape mechanism, not often, but sometimes they make for a good, cheap, vacation from stress. If I still read much fiction, it too would be a good mini-vacation, but sadly I don't think technical manuals and philosophy tomes are very relaxing.
As in all things, moderation is key, and your relationship with whatever activity. I've seen people be far more self-destructive with exercise than I have with gaming or reading. To be honest, I find sports more unhealthy than gaming most the time, since it is MORE stressful to the participants.
Er... so if I don't buy your political ideology, I don't love freedom? I don't equate freedom with a rather extreme political movement, or political Libertarianism. I think your ability to express your view and do something about it is freedom, even if I don't necessarily equate your view with freedom. Personally I think the Freestate idea is LESS free, since you want to move somewhere and impress your view on others, en mass. That and I consider freedom as more than mere "freedom from government interference", which is a vital part, but only half of the story.
"If you can't lose your bigotry," and "get out of my glorious melting pot of a nation" don't quite work together that well. Its like saying "Be opened minded, OR ELSE!", "Be reasonable, or die!", etc...
To add my 2c to this inane debate, I do think that people SHOULD be respectful of the cultures they are visiting, I don't think that this should be compulsory though (you can't force decency or common courtesy). On the same hand when a group of people, who are here illegally or from our own invitation, start to degrade the services offered towards citizens, then there is some cause for concern and action.
I live in Phoenix, there are areas of this city where all business MUST be conducted in Spanish, and resemble parts of Mexico City. Read this as, there are parts of my city where I am not allowed to do business. This annoys me. And you can't call this "Racist", since I really don't care where they are from, or what they speak, it would still be annoying. More so, it probably isn't good for society or culture since it keeps us from ever actually being a "melting pot". Its just a form of Balkanization, and generally hurts cultural unity and understanding more than it helps.
To add to this, English is the de facto language of the U.S., even if not the legal language. What language is our government run in, or do we have interpreters in Congress like, say, in the UN?
There is a good definition of altruism. If you match the criteria, you are, if you don't, then you aren't. I wasn't going for a value judgment here, just pointing out that for the most part companies DON'T have any idea of "the greater good" in mind.
I didn't say the government should, or should not, do anything. That wasn't the point. Just because something isn't altruistic, doesn't make it bad. About 9-% of our daily activity isn't altruistic either.
Also; amoral != immoral. Immoral means your doing evil, amoral means your not trying to be moral or immoral, or the term doesn't apply. You can make a profit both morally, or immorally. Hence the idea of profit itself is AMORAL.
Actually I'm guessing many small to medium, and privatly held companies are actually run in the way you describe. It seems though, that the larger the company, and the more people it has to answer too (shareholders), the less important the employees well being becomes, and the more important profit as an ends to itself becomes.
It's evil for them to make a profit and use their new profit to employ additional workers--to give the jobless jobs?
Lets be realistic, it takes a LOT less workers to resell electricity, than it does to process aluminum. Less workers = less overhead = MORE profit. If the executive could fire everyone and print his own money, he would.
I'm not saying the profit is evil, it just isn't altruistic, or morally good either. Profit is amoral as a goal.
This is why people see business' as evil, since they care far more for money, than they do about their workers, or the society their embedded in. We can see this currently, no? To simplfy this, people see corporation (or pure for-profits) as evil because they do not exist within the framework of morals/ethics which we hold ourselves too.
On the other hand, I live in the United States, where we have rights *by default* until the government takes them away-- in fact, I'm reasonably sure that it's probably perfectly legal to take a nice steaming dumb in the middle of the street in Washington State. You might be cited for obstructing traffic (which is illegal), but the street-shitting is legal by default.
Someday someone will tell me what the hell a right is, and where the hell they come from. Until then, I discount most talk of them as empty. And why don't we ever mention the dreaded term "responsibility" when it comes to rights. Rights are, by whatever definition, a social construct, and can only exist in a social setting, and as such would necessarily be based on a concept of social responsibility, once this concept is voided, the term "rights" becomes empty, and nothing more than an excuse for banal egotistical individualism.
By saying you have a RIGHT to use plastic bags, aren't you belittling the idea of a "right" as well? We were endowed by our creator the right to use plastic bags. It lacks a certain finesse that the original had. Unless you mean "right" as "the ability to do whatever the hell I want", in which I could see myself being a strong advocate against the very idea of "rights".
There are numerous studies on the effects, and decay, of plastics, by the way. At quick google would be your friend.
Actually you'd be charged with an array of valid offenses, such as obstructing traffic, indecent exposure, etc... And more importantly your community would shun you, and you might get a nice mandatory psych eval (which is also valid in this case).
Betting on science fiction is a losing game. I prefer to live in the now, and only do things that have solutions now. Yes, you should commit suicide because life sucks now, and in a thousand years they can bring you back, and life will be cooler (think of the flying cars!).
And the plastics in landfills isn't as alarming as the plastics everywhere else, that will be sticking around for geologic time scales.
. Any heretics are branded "deniers" and derided as backwards, retarded, and ignorant.
Perhaps I've meet a different gaggle of global warming supporters than you, but I've never been branded as "backwards, retarded, and ignorant" for at least doubting the anthropocentricity of global warming (note the term "doubting" over denying). I've actually had insightful conversations based on the possibility of being certain of long range trends, as it relates to the global warming issue.
I doubt that you find much of what you describe in GW circles, IF you approach them with respect, and honest doubt (not the popular dogmatic denial, which has no place in science). Arguing that they are wrong (but you of course are right) because of the uncertainty of science is rather absurd, wouldn't your statement apply to yourself equally? Its rather hard to take such things serious, and mockery is generally deserved.
The one issue with deniers (not doubters) that I've noticed is that they HAVE to be right, and keep bringing up the same disproven examples again and again, then get mad when no one listens to them. Denial of anthropogenic global warming has become almost a religious dogma, over a well reasoned scientific hypothesis, which astounds me. What is there in that statement that allows one to vest so much personal interest, and identity? How the hell did this become a "wedge" issue like other historical moral/religious ones like Abortion, creationism, and the treatment of homosexuals?
Yes, you see some of this on the other side, mostly among lay people. But it seems more concentrated in the denier side.
My personal view is that I don't know. I personally don't have much an opinion on whether it is anthropogenic, or not. I support measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and other pollutants, though because it is better to be safe than sorry. If they are correct, and we do nothing, the consiquences are rather grave. If they are wrong, and we do something, there is very little consequences (and even some fringe benefits).
I think the line blurs with social gaming (MMOs, MUDs, etc), where you actually have social ties with other players. It's much easier to forfeit a solo experience, than voluntarily abandon a whole peer group. I can quit playing FFXII rather easily, but quitting WoW would be much harder since I'd be giving up friends.
I had the same issue with MUDs back in the 90s, I knew half of the people locally, but that other 50% became part of my day to day life. It was hard to just leave them. More than addiction, its more of a cost analysis, though. Friendship, and human contact is very important to us, and we're volentarily giving up on it just to satisfy a weak response to the posibility of addiction (we're giving it up to live to someones else's principles).
Sometimes I log into WoW, and just sit in a capital city talking with friends, I don't find this problematic, nor an addiction. It seems to me to be just another communications medium. It would be like giving up the internet, or phone service, because I use it a lot.
I agree with you about the Chinese mentality towards these games. They view them very much as an international statement about their new legitimacy on the international scene.
The problem I have is that many people outside of China has voice much the same opinion, that these are sports, and are thus serious business. Much more serious than, say, Darfur or human rights violations. I'm questioning the outsiders view, more than the Chinese.
I don't understand why people take sports seriously, much less hold them higher than other, obviously more important, issues.
The Olympics aren't about you, and they aren't about your pet issue. There are plenty of other venues to air these protests. Disrespecting the athletes by marring the games with these protests is no better than what happened in Munich in 1972.
Er... Nothing is more serious than sports? That is a rather silly take on things. The Olympics isn't anything special, its a massive corporate event, nothing more. I'm sorry, if someone could actually effect some degree of change, while interrupting a mere sporting event, I'm all for it. I generally hold human rights higher than throwing little disks, or swimming in a straight line really fast.
And while I think this guy is a fool, comparing it to the Munich Olympics is rather daft. Who did he kill? Shining a little laser is generally thought to be less deadly than explosives. I'll also take lasers over fatalities and terrorism any day.
I never understood why we hold sports so special, especially at a massive corporate event (with a dubious record itself). Yes, they're good athletes, but who cares? It isn't like they're doing anything that matters.
To be honest, I was about to foe you for your first comment... But I think you have a point, even if you phrase it in the most inflammatory of ways. I am getting sick of people thinking of graffiti as art, much less activism. Its destructive and antisocial, and shouldn't be considered to have any merits, unless you only deface your own property. (I've gone so far as to report some acquaintances to the authorities for being "artists")
Its another case of people thinking that their individual rights should always trump that of the society as a whole. Which is becoming more and more common these days.
Yes, this graffiti is rather non-invasive, and doesn't damage much. But when your in a foreign country, you must follow their rules and mores, even if you don't like them. If you have the urge to "do the right thing", then you must be a trooper and accept the consequences of your actions, no matter what they are.
Also, does this guy really think graffiti will change the world? This might be among the stupidest ideas I've heard in the last year or so.
Part of the problem is the static image, but the motion, and slight differences in affect. We humans are very good at, and devote huge amounts of brain power, to perceiving the affect of others. So when they are a little close, but still off in strange ways, it can be jarring. In the Final Fantasy movie, when the characters walked, it gave me a mild case of the heeby-jeebies, I still can't quite put my finger on why, but it seems that they moved far to smoothly to be actually human.
The other problem we run into with "virtual" people, and not stuff animals (or even corpses), is that our brain is constantly tricked into thinking they are real, then being jarred by their unreality. This can lead to a feeling of "uncanniness".
Back to Arizona, sorry for using it as an example again, I know it best. Results may vary. The largest city in the state, Phoenix, is notoriously conservative. While the second biggest city is largely liberal. Many of our rural towns up north are very liberal, while an equal number of them are uber-conservative.
Really it comes down to district by district, with the happy usage of gerrymandering.
I fully agree, the norm is generally not terrible, though I often think that our corporate structure leads to full on nastiness by its nature. Not just the accountability bit, but the emphasis on pure profit, no matter the other (less substantial) costs. I'm pretty sure it is a necessary evil though, or at least better than current alternatives. Like all things, a dose of vigilance, and (as stated) increased accountability generally checks most ills.
And I can't concur with your statement "we really don't have much going for us anymore."
Point taken, and not disputed. We're probably, if nothing else, a little better off these days than in the past. Leagues ahead of where we were during the Industrial Revolution, at least.
Slashdot Mirror
So shouldn't Spanish speakers start talking Hohokam then, or at least Apache? Just because a land used to be controlled by one culture, doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of thing.
I'm not trying to be hostile here. I really don't care what you speak with your family and neighbors, I actually enjoy living in a multicultural part of the world, and enjoy the idea of people passing their cultural ideas along. I still don't think linguistic Balkanization is healthy for society as whole. Its really easy to hate people you can't communicate with, especially when their values/culture are slightly different than yours. Here in Arizona we find MASSIVE amounts of hostility towards our Hispanic population (legal and not), I think that the linguistic and cultural insularity of parts of the Hispanic population contribute to this.
Telnet, Email, etc...
Internet != the Web.
I see your point, but don't think its really applicable.
The actual governance of the state/city is in english, 80% of the population speaks English, and conducts all their language in it, English is the de facto language of the US. They choose to separate themselves from the main culture, and not visa versa.
Its not a happy fact, but some degree of assimilation is needed. If I were to move to Mexico City, I would at least attempt to learn more spanish, and if I can't be fluent, I'd try for at least being able to say common things like a tourist. I expect the same courtesy.
To haggle on this a bit... You CAN force small government on people, especially if you intentionally invade a community en masse with the implicit goal to manipulate their politics. Generally the politics of a community reflect that community, and thus when you, from the outside, choose to manipulate it, it will no long match thats communities morals and mores.
As for small government, it depends on what you mean. Lets say you go someplace with socialized medicine, and it is popularly mandated, and works for them. There exists dogmatic stances that say that this is big government at its worst, and it hurts "free markets" (as an ends to themselves). Now lets say there is an influx of small-government-freemarketers from outside who move there, becoming a unified voting block large enough to sway their votes, and thus banish their chosen "big government" for their idealistic smaller one, EVEN if this "big" government was working for them. This is a hypothetical of course, but a possibility.
I personally dislike the idea of small government for its own good(as do I big government), you could indeed force it on me. I only care for the communal (and individual) good as its own ends. If a "big government" program works for people, then let it stand. If it increases the general well being, then let it stand.
They're playing these sort of games because they're unhappy about their body image. So they create a new one in-game. [citation needed]
I've been playing video games since I was 6, am not overweight (6'4" 185lbs), and have no body issue problems. So... did I kill your premise yet?
I'd say these people who drink 30 protein shakes a day, and hang out with other half naked men talking about their pectoral muscles have a body image problem. Anyone actually obsessed with being FIT has a body image problem. I walk, can go jogging (if I didn't find it idiotic), often go on 15+ mile day hikes, so why should I be FITTER, when I'm fit enough to be healthy, and capable of carrying out my day to day activities? When anything becomes a way of life it is generally a cover for a deeper mental hang-up.
And yes, I play MMOs. Why? Because I enjoy it, and enjoy the company. Also, as stated, I've been playing games since I was 6, as have a lot of people. Gaming isn't really all that weird or aberrant anymore, why do we treat it so?
Look at the sales statistics of video games, its hard to be a fringe culture with that many people doing it.
To butt into this amusing dialogue. I would point to the use (and abuse) of the term "abuse". Can "abusing" pot, "abusing" video games, and "abusing" heroin/PCP/crack all be considered in the same class? The term itself is vague.
This, I think, the the nexus of misunderstanding.
No.
A substance is physical, and MMO is not, it lacks extension.
Moderation. The key to all things. No reason to abstain, no reason for excess.
I'm a relatively happy and healthy (not athletic, but 6'4"/185lb), and I play MMOs mostly to socialize, not hide. Some of my old friends from high school play who I haven't actually seen in person for 12 years, so its a nice way to get together and hang out, especially when distance and schedules keep us from meeting in person that often. Probably still healthier, since we'd probably be meeting in the local pub.
If your definition of gaming includes the idea of hiding, then you have an unhealthy relationship with games. I've been playing video games since I was 6, and using the internet since I was eight, these are increasingly just becoming a way of life, much like television and books, to an increasing amount of the population. Is watching 2 hours of TV after work escapism? Is reading a novel? What about a nice solitary hike (not as exercise, but just to blow the stink off)? All of these are somewhat escapist, I suppose, but not necessarily unhealthy when taken in moderation. All of them have about the same value, and the same purpose.
Though I admit, sometimes I use both the hike and the games as an escape mechanism, not often, but sometimes they make for a good, cheap, vacation from stress. If I still read much fiction, it too would be a good mini-vacation, but sadly I don't think technical manuals and philosophy tomes are very relaxing.
As in all things, moderation is key, and your relationship with whatever activity. I've seen people be far more self-destructive with exercise than I have with gaming or reading. To be honest, I find sports more unhealthy than gaming most the time, since it is MORE stressful to the participants.
Most of the private individuals getting shafted by AIG probably didn't even KNOW they were dealing with AIG.
Er... so if I don't buy your political ideology, I don't love freedom? I don't equate freedom with a rather extreme political movement, or political Libertarianism. I think your ability to express your view and do something about it is freedom, even if I don't necessarily equate your view with freedom. Personally I think the Freestate idea is LESS free, since you want to move somewhere and impress your view on others, en mass. That and I consider freedom as more than mere "freedom from government interference", which is a vital part, but only half of the story.
"If you can't lose your bigotry," and "get out of my glorious melting pot of a nation" don't quite work together that well. Its like saying "Be opened minded, OR ELSE!", "Be reasonable, or die!", etc...
To add my 2c to this inane debate, I do think that people SHOULD be respectful of the cultures they are visiting, I don't think that this should be compulsory though (you can't force decency or common courtesy). On the same hand when a group of people, who are here illegally or from our own invitation, start to degrade the services offered towards citizens, then there is some cause for concern and action.
I live in Phoenix, there are areas of this city where all business MUST be conducted in Spanish, and resemble parts of Mexico City. Read this as, there are parts of my city where I am not allowed to do business. This annoys me. And you can't call this "Racist", since I really don't care where they are from, or what they speak, it would still be annoying. More so, it probably isn't good for society or culture since it keeps us from ever actually being a "melting pot". Its just a form of Balkanization, and generally hurts cultural unity and understanding more than it helps.
To add to this, English is the de facto language of the U.S., even if not the legal language. What language is our government run in, or do we have interpreters in Congress like, say, in the UN?
There is a good definition of altruism. If you match the criteria, you are, if you don't, then you aren't. I wasn't going for a value judgment here, just pointing out that for the most part companies DON'T have any idea of "the greater good" in mind.
I didn't say the government should, or should not, do anything. That wasn't the point. Just because something isn't altruistic, doesn't make it bad. About 9-% of our daily activity isn't altruistic either.
Also; amoral != immoral. Immoral means your doing evil, amoral means your not trying to be moral or immoral, or the term doesn't apply. You can make a profit both morally, or immorally. Hence the idea of profit itself is AMORAL.
Please, start a large corporation.
Actually I'm guessing many small to medium, and privatly held companies are actually run in the way you describe. It seems though, that the larger the company, and the more people it has to answer too (shareholders), the less important the employees well being becomes, and the more important profit as an ends to itself becomes.
It's evil for them to make a profit and use their new profit to employ additional workers--to give the jobless jobs?
Lets be realistic, it takes a LOT less workers to resell electricity, than it does to process aluminum. Less workers = less overhead = MORE profit. If the executive could fire everyone and print his own money, he would.
I'm not saying the profit is evil, it just isn't altruistic, or morally good either. Profit is amoral as a goal.
This is why people see business' as evil, since they care far more for money, than they do about their workers, or the society their embedded in. We can see this currently, no? To simplfy this, people see corporation (or pure for-profits) as evil because they do not exist within the framework of morals/ethics which we hold ourselves too.
On the other hand, I live in the United States, where we have rights *by default* until the government takes them away-- in fact, I'm reasonably sure that it's probably perfectly legal to take a nice steaming dumb in the middle of the street in Washington State. You might be cited for obstructing traffic (which is illegal), but the street-shitting is legal by default.
Someday someone will tell me what the hell a right is, and where the hell they come from. Until then, I discount most talk of them as empty. And why don't we ever mention the dreaded term "responsibility" when it comes to rights. Rights are, by whatever definition, a social construct, and can only exist in a social setting, and as such would necessarily be based on a concept of social responsibility, once this concept is voided, the term "rights" becomes empty, and nothing more than an excuse for banal egotistical individualism.
By saying you have a RIGHT to use plastic bags, aren't you belittling the idea of a "right" as well? We were endowed by our creator the right to use plastic bags. It lacks a certain finesse that the original had. Unless you mean "right" as "the ability to do whatever the hell I want", in which I could see myself being a strong advocate against the very idea of "rights".
There are numerous studies on the effects, and decay, of plastics, by the way. At quick google would be your friend.
Actually you'd be charged with an array of valid offenses, such as obstructing traffic, indecent exposure, etc... And more importantly your community would shun you, and you might get a nice mandatory psych eval (which is also valid in this case).
Betting on science fiction is a losing game. I prefer to live in the now, and only do things that have solutions now. Yes, you should commit suicide because life sucks now, and in a thousand years they can bring you back, and life will be cooler (think of the flying cars!).
And the plastics in landfills isn't as alarming as the plastics everywhere else, that will be sticking around for geologic time scales.
. Any heretics are branded "deniers" and derided as backwards, retarded, and ignorant.
Perhaps I've meet a different gaggle of global warming supporters than you, but I've never been branded as "backwards, retarded, and ignorant" for at least doubting the anthropocentricity of global warming (note the term "doubting" over denying). I've actually had insightful conversations based on the possibility of being certain of long range trends, as it relates to the global warming issue.
I doubt that you find much of what you describe in GW circles, IF you approach them with respect, and honest doubt (not the popular dogmatic denial, which has no place in science). Arguing that they are wrong (but you of course are right) because of the uncertainty of science is rather absurd, wouldn't your statement apply to yourself equally? Its rather hard to take such things serious, and mockery is generally deserved.
The one issue with deniers (not doubters) that I've noticed is that they HAVE to be right, and keep bringing up the same disproven examples again and again, then get mad when no one listens to them. Denial of anthropogenic global warming has become almost a religious dogma, over a well reasoned scientific hypothesis, which astounds me. What is there in that statement that allows one to vest so much personal interest, and identity? How the hell did this become a "wedge" issue like other historical moral/religious ones like Abortion, creationism, and the treatment of homosexuals?
Yes, you see some of this on the other side, mostly among lay people. But it seems more concentrated in the denier side.
My personal view is that I don't know. I personally don't have much an opinion on whether it is anthropogenic, or not. I support measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and other pollutants, though because it is better to be safe than sorry. If they are correct, and we do nothing, the consiquences are rather grave. If they are wrong, and we do something, there is very little consequences (and even some fringe benefits).
Ah... the glory of pragmatism.
I think the line blurs with social gaming (MMOs, MUDs, etc), where you actually have social ties with other players. It's much easier to forfeit a solo experience, than voluntarily abandon a whole peer group. I can quit playing FFXII rather easily, but quitting WoW would be much harder since I'd be giving up friends.
I had the same issue with MUDs back in the 90s, I knew half of the people locally, but that other 50% became part of my day to day life. It was hard to just leave them. More than addiction, its more of a cost analysis, though. Friendship, and human contact is very important to us, and we're volentarily giving up on it just to satisfy a weak response to the posibility of addiction (we're giving it up to live to someones else's principles).
Sometimes I log into WoW, and just sit in a capital city talking with friends, I don't find this problematic, nor an addiction. It seems to me to be just another communications medium. It would be like giving up the internet, or phone service, because I use it a lot.
I agree with you about the Chinese mentality towards these games. They view them very much as an international statement about their new legitimacy on the international scene.
The problem I have is that many people outside of China has voice much the same opinion, that these are sports, and are thus serious business. Much more serious than, say, Darfur or human rights violations. I'm questioning the outsiders view, more than the Chinese.
I don't understand why people take sports seriously, much less hold them higher than other, obviously more important, issues.
The Olympics aren't about you, and they aren't about your pet issue. There are plenty of other venues to air these protests. Disrespecting the athletes by marring the games with these protests is no better than what happened in Munich in 1972.
Er... Nothing is more serious than sports? That is a rather silly take on things. The Olympics isn't anything special, its a massive corporate event, nothing more. I'm sorry, if someone could actually effect some degree of change, while interrupting a mere sporting event, I'm all for it. I generally hold human rights higher than throwing little disks, or swimming in a straight line really fast.
And while I think this guy is a fool, comparing it to the Munich Olympics is rather daft. Who did he kill? Shining a little laser is generally thought to be less deadly than explosives. I'll also take lasers over fatalities and terrorism any day.
I never understood why we hold sports so special, especially at a massive corporate event (with a dubious record itself). Yes, they're good athletes, but who cares? It isn't like they're doing anything that matters.
To be honest, I was about to foe you for your first comment... But I think you have a point, even if you phrase it in the most inflammatory of ways. I am getting sick of people thinking of graffiti as art, much less activism. Its destructive and antisocial, and shouldn't be considered to have any merits, unless you only deface your own property. (I've gone so far as to report some acquaintances to the authorities for being "artists")
Its another case of people thinking that their individual rights should always trump that of the society as a whole. Which is becoming more and more common these days.
Yes, this graffiti is rather non-invasive, and doesn't damage much. But when your in a foreign country, you must follow their rules and mores, even if you don't like them. If you have the urge to "do the right thing", then you must be a trooper and accept the consequences of your actions, no matter what they are.
Also, does this guy really think graffiti will change the world? This might be among the stupidest ideas I've heard in the last year or so.
Part of the problem is the static image, but the motion, and slight differences in affect. We humans are very good at, and devote huge amounts of brain power, to perceiving the affect of others. So when they are a little close, but still off in strange ways, it can be jarring. In the Final Fantasy movie, when the characters walked, it gave me a mild case of the heeby-jeebies, I still can't quite put my finger on why, but it seems that they moved far to smoothly to be actually human.
The other problem we run into with "virtual" people, and not stuff animals (or even corpses), is that our brain is constantly tricked into thinking they are real, then being jarred by their unreality. This can lead to a feeling of "uncanniness".
Sometimes...
Back to Arizona, sorry for using it as an example again, I know it best. Results may vary. The largest city in the state, Phoenix, is notoriously conservative. While the second biggest city is largely liberal. Many of our rural towns up north are very liberal, while an equal number of them are uber-conservative.
Really it comes down to district by district, with the happy usage of gerrymandering.
I fully agree, the norm is generally not terrible, though I often think that our corporate structure leads to full on nastiness by its nature. Not just the accountability bit, but the emphasis on pure profit, no matter the other (less substantial) costs. I'm pretty sure it is a necessary evil though, or at least better than current alternatives. Like all things, a dose of vigilance, and (as stated) increased accountability generally checks most ills.
And I can't concur with your statement "we really don't have much going for us anymore."
Point taken, and not disputed. We're probably, if nothing else, a little better off these days than in the past. Leagues ahead of where we were during the Industrial Revolution, at least.