What you have to do here is show them that not only are you willing to deal with the thugs on their own terms, you can do it better and faster. By behaving similarly to them, but in a much more extreme fashion, you will impress them and possibly even intimidate them.
Or, to look at it from another point of view, they can't vandalize my goddamn store if I burn it down first!
For those who may not realize that the above poster is joking, in my original post I was referring to the percentage of Mormons in the population of Mesa. I was not attempting to denigrate their intelligence. Enjoy your Slashdotting time and have a nice day.
I tend to broadly classify religions by their textual or traditional basis (as well as the social/political attitudes their respective members tend to express) rather than by the specific details of their beliefs. Thus by Christianity I refer to the diverse group of denominations, non-denominational churches and derivatives that that use the Old and New Testament Bible as the basis for its belief (or derivations).
I do so because there aren't any established standards (or at least none I'm aware of) for grouping them (as opposed to what one particular denomination/nondenomination/derivative considers Christianity to be) and because as an atheist I don't see much difference in validity between each one's deviations from the others. But this isn't a discussion about my feelings about Christianity, it's about the aggressiveness of Mormon evangelism. I simply want to clarify my previous post.
Data point: the ONLY door-to-door evangelist who has ever knocked on my door opened his spiel with "Have you ever read the book of Mormon?". I therefore assume he was from LDS.
I said "one of the most aggressive", not "the only aggressive", and I was referring more to the church's directives than to the attitudes of individuals or the specific practice of door-to-door evangelism. (As an aside, virtually all Mormon young men in my area are strongly expected to go on a mission when they reach adulthood, something I don't see in other religions. However I'm not familiar enough with the specifics of the practice to feel comfortable using it as a reference.) Most Christian denominations/nondenominations/derivatives don't have quite as much of a persistent, organized effort to evangelize as Mormonism. Certainly there are those who are as enthusiastic (or more so) about spreading their message - Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind, as do Scientologists - but from the group that my parent post presented (Mormons, Baptists, Catholics) I consider Mormonism the most evangelistically aggressive.
A scientologist was the only one ever to pester me on the street.
In that I meant I had never seen a direct commercial for any other religion on television. As someone else posted, Scientology does run commercials for Dianetics. However that doesn't make it a common practice, as I think you would agree Scientology is also exceptionally aggressive in its sales practices - er, evangelistic attitudes.
I'm rather proud of my reply to this one: "No, I haven't ever had a f*ing stress test, and I don't f*ing want one. I'm late for a f*ing meeting. Get out of my way."
I found this highly amusing. (Or in cruder terms, "LOL")
I live in Mesa, Arizona, which has a very dense Mormon population. Virtually every city block in the more suburban areas has an LDS church, frequently more than one. Therefore I feel I'm qualified to challenge your assertion.
I have never seen or heard a Mormon ever preach to someone else
Not to sound inflammatory but I think you're dealing with a very limited sample of "jack" Mormons. The Church is very enthusiastic about missionary work, and in places where there is a large Mormon population it is a very common sight to see the two-man missionary teams bicycling around to go door-to-door and preach. In fact I would say LDS is one of the most aggressive denominations in terms of evangelism. They even have commercials advertising free copies of the Book of Mormon - I've never seen anything similar from another denomination or religion, even Scientology (which strikes me as the most inclined to do such a thing).
I do concede that it might be that most of my experience dealing with Mormons has been in the suburbs, where the vast majority of adult Mormons have children and a more conservative mindset than those in other types of area, but I actually find that Mormons are generally the most hard-line conservative in their attitudes among Christian denominations unless they're jack Mormons, in which case they're much more liberal-minded.
By elitism I was referring primarily to the conference's position rather than yours.
You are absolutely correct that skill sets atrophy. It seems that I was thinking more about the perception of drawing-skill atrophy as some widespread problem rather than the fact that it exists.
The computer takes the art out of the hands and into the mouse.
And what, pray tell, moves the mouse?
Need a circle? Create a perfect circle with the computer algorythym.
How is this any more offensive than using a compass, particularly given that the current state of monitor/print resolution means the compass would yield a circle closer to perfect than the one actually displayed/printed?
Wanna make the red flowers into blue flowers? Use the color-change algorythym.
Where does one get the red flowers in the first place? Were they perhaps drawn?
Ultimately, different media have different properties and it's up to the artist to choose what works best for their piece. If the artist is seeking a hand-drawn look, the only way to properly achieve that is going to be by hand-drawing the piece. And if technology advances to the point where one can achieve a hand-drawn look using computer software, those who feel comfortable with said software can use it, and those who don't are quite free to use a pencil.
Frankly the position smacks of groundless elitism to me. Does the proliferation of oil-based paint also weaken classic drawing skills? If so, why is that somehow more acceptable than computer software having the same effect?
But have you ever tried to prosecute God in a court of law?
It's a colossal pain in the ass. The judge and the defendant's counsel always get in a huge argument about whether He hasn't shown up yet or He was there all along.
I think that calling the police is the only solution to these problems, and I think the police should treat these incidents as full-blown assault cases.
Calling the police would be a more acceptable solution if they did treat the incident as a full-blown assault case. Unfortunately, they usually don't, which is why people end up having to tell their daughters to knee their harassers in the face.
That's hardly fair. You also have to talk shit at the same time. Only the eleetest thirteen-year-olds can run around, shoot stuff, and talk shit at the same time.
the more you expose children to violence, the more likely given kid will snap
If that is correct, then we are all absolutely screwed. This world is practically soaked in violence. Yes, there are violent video games, violent movies, violent lyrics in music, and all that. But there's also the news media... watch the evening news one night and see what they tell you. Murders, car crashes, rapes, robberies - you'd think the entire city was one big bloodbath. Or you could watch CNN and hear about the war in Iraq. For a brief respite you might turn to a sports channel, where you can watch linebackers slam quarterbacks into the ground and gloat about it, or maybe watch a NASCAR highlight reel - which, if you haven't seen one, is all the crashes.
Why is TV so violent? Because that's what people want to watch.
Could it be that the human being has an innate craving for violence? In ancient times up to around the 1800s, there was plenty of conflict and strife to satiate such a craving. The 1800s had their share of wars too. The early 1900s brought two world wars, and as the world subsided into relative peace, the entertainment industry gradually rose to deliver violent material to the people. We have now entered the 21st century, where many Americans' lives are pretty much devoid of outright violence, and so pop culture and the media have begun to suffuse their minds with violent images and ideas.
Curious thing, in Europe these kinds of things are almost unknown. Why?
Because Europeans have plenty of real-world violence around. They're next to Africa and the Middle East, they can call up memories of two world wars fought on their soil, and in more recent times, they can take a trip to France and watch the riots.
More seriously... there's no question that America has one of the most violent cultures in the world. Why is it then that its crime rate has been steadily declining over the past several years?
Well, they're taught firearms safety; I inferred from the grandparent poster's phrase "play with dad's gun" that the hypothetical kids in their example were not. Which I ought to have pointed out as well - most kids who have been taught firearms safety are aware of what happens when one shoots something, which would have rendered the scenario moot.
At the end of the day, it comes down to teaching children what is right and what is wrong. It's not like kids magically learn that killing people is unacceptable when they turn 18, and until then we have to shelter them from anything that implies otherwise. If the kid knows that it's not okay to shoot people, playing GTA isn't going to make him a killer.
And if your kid gets shot by a psycho kid who played one brutal game too many, and lost the sense of difference between the games and the real world
Take note of the critical two words of that sentence: "psycho kid." A kid with the severity of psychological issues that would be necessary to confuse video games with the real world would, sooner or later, run across something violent - be it a video game, a movie, or a fight at school - that would push him to violent acts of his own. Video games are rarely, if ever, the only factor in any individual's decision to commit violence. It would be more effective to address the psychological issues making the kid susceptible to influence by video games than to censor the games. Remember that before video games were the villain of the moment, school shootings were blamed on Marilyn Manson and The Basketball Diaries.
But if the kid goes to spend the pocket money on a game where the brain splashes oh so cool on the wall, and then unattended will play with dad's gun and test it on his sister, to see if her brain splashes just the same,
Maybe it's just me, but I see a much, much bigger problem in your hypothetical situation than you seem to. Do you consider it more dangerous for children to play violent video games, or for children to have unfettered access to firearms? And do you think that someone careless enough to leave their gun within apparently easy reach of children would think anything of buying said violent games for their kids?
It's more likely that among the multitude of suits that they've filed, journalists have picked out and played up the most ridiculous ones, as "divorced mother of five sued for downloading six songs" makes for a more interesting story than "college kid [likely to be perceived as out of control anyway] sued for downloading gigabytes of music [which to many people is as arbitrary a measurement as "kajillion"]". I doubt the RIAA knows anything more about the defendants than what they downloaded and whatever else is necessary to file the lawsuit - can you imagine researching enough on 14,800 defendants to know their family status?
Alternatively, my paranoid side is suggesting to me that they're picking on "little guys" to create an impression that nobody is safe from their elite strike force of lawyers.
And while I doubt they're trying to make themselves look like villains, perhaps they figure that since they already do look like villains, it won't hurt their reputation to go after grandmothers, single mothers, 12-year-old girls and the like.
Teens have some rights. When you're a teen, it sucks. When you're an oldster responsible for teens, notsomuch.
So what you're saying is, discrimination against a fairly wide swathe of the population based solely on age is okay as long as it makes your life a little easier?
"Back in the 60s, Negroes had some rights. If you were a Negro, it sucked. If you were a white man responsible for Negroes, notsomuch."
So, if a group of teenagers wants to remain on public property, they're displaying contempt for the property owner?
There are already plenty of laws covering any actual damages that loitering teenagers may cause. Vandalism, for instance, is a crime, as is harassment [of storegoers]. Going in and stealing from the store is prosecuted as shoplifting. Smoking when underage is also a crime. If the teenagers are standing in front of a store and are not otherwise committing any crimes, what harm are they doing?
And with regard to the "hoodlums" these devices are supposedly intended to repel... what makes you think they're going to care any more than if the store employees come out and tell them to leave? I imagine a lot of stores are going to have their teenager repellants smashed with baseball bats or 2x4s if these see widespread use.
It's all about context. Games can influence behavior; so can TV. Someone who, for some reason, doesn't understand that it's bad to mow down people with an automatic rifle may well be influenced by a video game to do so. Someone who has been normally socialized and understands that murder is bad will not be swayed by said video game.
Similarly, someone who doesn't understand that gamers are generally civilized human beings like everyone else will be swayed by a TV show that (by my understanding) effectively uses "gamer" as a euphemism for "murderer." The difference here is that many people actually don't know much about gamers or gamer culture, and are likely to believe that gamers are murderers - and treat them as such.
The key here is that influences on one's behavior or viewpoint are filtered through pre-existing knowledge first. If a source that is perceived as credible gives misinformation, and there is no pre-existing knowledge that contradicts it, the misinformation will take root because nothing suggests that it would be untrue. It's the same reason why Internet hoaxes last as long as they do.
While I'm on the subject, I should point out that I do not consider it possible for games to turn the average kid into a murderer because (one) most kids don't treat games as a credible source of information, and (two) most kids have been properly socialized to know that the acts in the game are unacceptable in reality. In the absence of factor (one), the kid knows not to commit the acts anyway; in the absence of factor (two), the kid is as likely to be influenced by a violent movie, violent song, violent book, or violent scene in nature as the video game.
If we keep developing ways to circumvent the advertisments, then they have to find other ways to get their products known.
Why do advertisers think that they can brute-force people into watching their shit? People generally skip commercials not because they don't like the commercials but because they don't like the advertising. They don't want to hear about your product. They want to watch their show. Moving the ads into the show will not help you, because they'll still be ads, and the people will still not want to watch them.
Is it really that hard to figure out? I see it everywhere: obfuscated spam to get past filters, Flash ads to get at people who block banners, and all that shit. The medium isn't the problem, the message is. Putting the message in a new medium will not suddenly make the message any more palatable.
As for ruining shows and movies, they can try it and see if I care. Until the day when they can force me to pay attention to their bullshit, they will always lose. The very fact that they have to do shit like this is just a sign that their business model is collapsing. Once they saturate the world with advertising to the point where everybody is so inured to it that no ad even registers in their mind - a point they're very rapidly reaching - they're screwed. And they will have nobody to blame but themselves.
On one side, we have Sparkle, which evokes images of giggling eight-year-old girls and My Little Pony.
On the other hand, we have Flash, which evokes images of creepy, overweight men in trenchcoats grinning lecherously at passing women before exposing himself to them. And a fast guy in a skintight red suit.
Slashdot Mirror
Like Blizzard hasn't nerfed Fear enough already, now we've got these smartass MIT guys trying to make everyone immune to it.
I knew I should have rolled Hunter.
What you have to do here is show them that not only are you willing to deal with the thugs on their own terms, you can do it better and faster. By behaving similarly to them, but in a much more extreme fashion, you will impress them and possibly even intimidate them.
Or, to look at it from another point of view, they can't vandalize my goddamn store if I burn it down first!
THEY SEE ME ROLLIN They hatin, patrollin, and tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Very funny.
For those who may not realize that the above poster is joking, in my original post I was referring to the percentage of Mormons in the population of Mesa. I was not attempting to denigrate their intelligence. Enjoy your Slashdotting time and have a nice day.
I tend to broadly classify religions by their textual or traditional basis (as well as the social/political attitudes their respective members tend to express) rather than by the specific details of their beliefs. Thus by Christianity I refer to the diverse group of denominations, non-denominational churches and derivatives that that use the Old and New Testament Bible as the basis for its belief (or derivations).
I do so because there aren't any established standards (or at least none I'm aware of) for grouping them (as opposed to what one particular denomination/nondenomination/derivative considers Christianity to be) and because as an atheist I don't see much difference in validity between each one's deviations from the others. But this isn't a discussion about my feelings about Christianity, it's about the aggressiveness of Mormon evangelism. I simply want to clarify my previous post.
In that I meant I had never seen a direct commercial for any other religion on television. As someone else posted, Scientology does run commercials for Dianetics. However that doesn't make it a common practice, as I think you would agree Scientology is also exceptionally aggressive in its sales practices - er, evangelistic attitudes.
I found this highly amusing. (Or in cruder terms, "LOL")
Not to sound inflammatory but I think you're dealing with a very limited sample of "jack" Mormons. The Church is very enthusiastic about missionary work, and in places where there is a large Mormon population it is a very common sight to see the two-man missionary teams bicycling around to go door-to-door and preach. In fact I would say LDS is one of the most aggressive denominations in terms of evangelism. They even have commercials advertising free copies of the Book of Mormon - I've never seen anything similar from another denomination or religion, even Scientology (which strikes me as the most inclined to do such a thing).
I do concede that it might be that most of my experience dealing with Mormons has been in the suburbs, where the vast majority of adult Mormons have children and a more conservative mindset than those in other types of area, but I actually find that Mormons are generally the most hard-line conservative in their attitudes among Christian denominations unless they're jack Mormons, in which case they're much more liberal-minded.
By elitism I was referring primarily to the conference's position rather than yours.
You are absolutely correct that skill sets atrophy. It seems that I was thinking more about the perception of drawing-skill atrophy as some widespread problem rather than the fact that it exists.
Ultimately, different media have different properties and it's up to the artist to choose what works best for their piece. If the artist is seeking a hand-drawn look, the only way to properly achieve that is going to be by hand-drawing the piece. And if technology advances to the point where one can achieve a hand-drawn look using computer software, those who feel comfortable with said software can use it, and those who don't are quite free to use a pencil.
Frankly the position smacks of groundless elitism to me. Does the proliferation of oil-based paint also weaken classic drawing skills? If so, why is that somehow more acceptable than computer software having the same effect?
Cheap thrill? You clearly weren't the guy who drilled the hole.
But I thought ramming it through was what caused the problem in the first place?
Why is TV so violent? Because that's what people want to watch.
Could it be that the human being has an innate craving for violence? In ancient times up to around the 1800s, there was plenty of conflict and strife to satiate such a craving. The 1800s had their share of wars too. The early 1900s brought two world wars, and as the world subsided into relative peace, the entertainment industry gradually rose to deliver violent material to the people. We have now entered the 21st century, where many Americans' lives are pretty much devoid of outright violence, and so pop culture and the media have begun to suffuse their minds with violent images and ideas. Because Europeans have plenty of real-world violence around. They're next to Africa and the Middle East, they can call up memories of two world wars fought on their soil, and in more recent times, they can take a trip to France and watch the riots.
More seriously... there's no question that America has one of the most violent cultures in the world. Why is it then that its crime rate has been steadily declining over the past several years?
Well, they're taught firearms safety; I inferred from the grandparent poster's phrase "play with dad's gun" that the hypothetical kids in their example were not. Which I ought to have pointed out as well - most kids who have been taught firearms safety are aware of what happens when one shoots something, which would have rendered the scenario moot.
At the end of the day, it comes down to teaching children what is right and what is wrong. It's not like kids magically learn that killing people is unacceptable when they turn 18, and until then we have to shelter them from anything that implies otherwise. If the kid knows that it's not okay to shoot people, playing GTA isn't going to make him a killer.
It's more likely that among the multitude of suits that they've filed, journalists have picked out and played up the most ridiculous ones, as "divorced mother of five sued for downloading six songs" makes for a more interesting story than "college kid [likely to be perceived as out of control anyway] sued for downloading gigabytes of music [which to many people is as arbitrary a measurement as "kajillion"]". I doubt the RIAA knows anything more about the defendants than what they downloaded and whatever else is necessary to file the lawsuit - can you imagine researching enough on 14,800 defendants to know their family status?
Alternatively, my paranoid side is suggesting to me that they're picking on "little guys" to create an impression that nobody is safe from their elite strike force of lawyers.
And while I doubt they're trying to make themselves look like villains, perhaps they figure that since they already do look like villains, it won't hurt their reputation to go after grandmothers, single mothers, 12-year-old girls and the like.
"Back in the 60s, Negroes had some rights. If you were a Negro, it sucked. If you were a white man responsible for Negroes, notsomuch."
O RLY?
So, if a group of teenagers wants to remain on public property, they're displaying contempt for the property owner?
There are already plenty of laws covering any actual damages that loitering teenagers may cause. Vandalism, for instance, is a crime, as is harassment [of storegoers]. Going in and stealing from the store is prosecuted as shoplifting. Smoking when underage is also a crime. If the teenagers are standing in front of a store and are not otherwise committing any crimes, what harm are they doing?
And with regard to the "hoodlums" these devices are supposedly intended to repel... what makes you think they're going to care any more than if the store employees come out and tell them to leave? I imagine a lot of stores are going to have their teenager repellants smashed with baseball bats or 2x4s if these see widespread use.
It's all about context. Games can influence behavior; so can TV. Someone who, for some reason, doesn't understand that it's bad to mow down people with an automatic rifle may well be influenced by a video game to do so. Someone who has been normally socialized and understands that murder is bad will not be swayed by said video game.
Similarly, someone who doesn't understand that gamers are generally civilized human beings like everyone else will be swayed by a TV show that (by my understanding) effectively uses "gamer" as a euphemism for "murderer." The difference here is that many people actually don't know much about gamers or gamer culture, and are likely to believe that gamers are murderers - and treat them as such.
The key here is that influences on one's behavior or viewpoint are filtered through pre-existing knowledge first. If a source that is perceived as credible gives misinformation, and there is no pre-existing knowledge that contradicts it, the misinformation will take root because nothing suggests that it would be untrue. It's the same reason why Internet hoaxes last as long as they do.
While I'm on the subject, I should point out that I do not consider it possible for games to turn the average kid into a murderer because (one) most kids don't treat games as a credible source of information, and (two) most kids have been properly socialized to know that the acts in the game are unacceptable in reality. In the absence of factor (one), the kid knows not to commit the acts anyway; in the absence of factor (two), the kid is as likely to be influenced by a violent movie, violent song, violent book, or violent scene in nature as the video game.
Is it really that hard to figure out? I see it everywhere: obfuscated spam to get past filters, Flash ads to get at people who block banners, and all that shit. The medium isn't the problem, the message is. Putting the message in a new medium will not suddenly make the message any more palatable.
As for ruining shows and movies, they can try it and see if I care. Until the day when they can force me to pay attention to their bullshit, they will always lose. The very fact that they have to do shit like this is just a sign that their business model is collapsing. Once they saturate the world with advertising to the point where everybody is so inured to it that no ad even registers in their mind - a point they're very rapidly reaching - they're screwed. And they will have nobody to blame but themselves.
On one side, we have Sparkle, which evokes images of giggling eight-year-old girls and My Little Pony.
On the other hand, we have Flash, which evokes images of creepy, overweight men in trenchcoats grinning lecherously at passing women before exposing himself to them. And a fast guy in a skintight red suit.
I don't know which is worse, girly or pervy.
So what you're saying is, instead of Foo camp you want them to book Ozzfest?