Unlimited Obama Appreciation Thread.

[Cain]

Why are video games getting a bad rap all of a sudden?  Some of the bestselling video games of the past decade have been immersive, brilliantly written and well executed stories which beat the shit out of anything that has come out of Hollywood in the same period.  Given the choice between watching the Saw series or playing something written by David Gaider, the latter wins hands down, every time.

[Adios]

Doesn't that depend on where, in the world, your table is located?

You and I will never see eye-to-eye on technology. You see it as a savior, I see it as a tool. ANd, no, I see no way for that to put food on your table.

[Adios]

Why are video games getting a bad rap all of a sudden?  Some of the bestselling video games of the past decade have been immersive, brilliantly written and well executed stories which beat the shit out of anything that has come out of Hollywood in the same period.  Given the choice between watching the Saw series or playing something written by David Gaider, the latter wins hands down, every time.

Heh. I would faint into a coma if Hollywood came up with something original.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Automation increases jobs, it doesn't decrease them.

As long as people are able to buy the product, though.  Right now the only thing they're buying is a bill of goods whose manifest reads:  "Give everything to the rich, and they'll take care of things."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Why are video games getting a bad rap all of a sudden?  Some of the bestselling video games of the past decade have been immersive, brilliantly written and well executed stories which beat the shit out of anything that has come out of Hollywood in the same period.  Given the choice between watching the Saw series or playing something written by David Gaider, the latter wins hands down, every time.

Heh. I would faint into a coma if Hollywood came up with something original.

Your generation had TV, mine had arcade games, this one has interbutts and cheaply available consoles.  None of these things have anything to do with the decline of jobs.

[Captain Utopia]

Doesn't that depend on where, in the world, your table is located?

You and I will never see eye-to-eye on technology. You see it as a savior, I see it as a tool. ANd, no, I see no way for that to put food on your table.

I don't see it as a savior.  Printing press technology enabled literacy.  Medical technology enables many people to live who would otherwise die.  It's a tool which enables things.  There is no line between old (good) technology and new (bad) technology.

It's all how we choose to use the tools that are given to us.

Take a look at this.  There is a growing resurgence in young folk learning how to make things for themselves.  It may not be all practical, but it is inventive, it is keeping those skills you talk about alive.  Furthermore, it is a revolution which has been enabled by technology - geeks compete in their basements to make ever more interesting things.  The internet enables them to swap skills and techniques

Why are video games getting a bad rap all of a sudden?  Some of the bestselling video games of the past decade have been immersive, brilliantly written and well executed stories which beat the shit out of anything that has come out of Hollywood in the same period.  Given the choice between watching the Saw series or playing something written by David Gaider, the latter wins hands down, every time.

Heh. I would faint into a coma if Hollywood came up with something original.

If book and film technologies have had much more influence on our civilization - don't they deserve more blame than video games?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Youth may or may not be more superficial than before.  But they are also getting involved in global concepts and events in an unprecedented scale.  I'm happy with that trade-off.

They're hitting "like" on "Egyptian Revolution".  This accomplishes precisely Jack and Shit, and Jack is too broke to show up.

If anything, instant communication has made people more shallow, not more involved.

But this has nothing to do with unemployment.  The masses have always had their diversions...500 years ago it consisted of nailing a cat to a post and head-butting it to death (no shit), and today it consists of playing Fallout 3, and pretending to be a participant in "Twitter revolutions".  The problem today is based more on NO FUCKING JOBS, and if that having trustafarians gush about Iran or Egypt on Facebook is a "happy trade off", then kill me right fucking now.

[Requia ☣]

I'd say tech does have something to do with employment issues.  Specifically it makes it to damned easy for a company to move jobs to a different state or country any time the local wages creep up a bit, especially with those 'service sector' jobs that don't require a factory.

You think all those people in India will get to keep those call center jobs?  Hell no, the second India starts to get on their feet and wages edge above $2 an hour that shit is going to South Africa or Tennessee.

Hell I took a job from some poor schmuck in an Indian call center, then had the job moved out of state on me (I dunno where Dell sent it, possibly back to India), all within 6 months.

[Captain Utopia]

Youth may or may not be more superficial than before.  But they are also getting involved in global concepts and events in an unprecedented scale.  I'm happy with that trade-off.

They're hitting "like" on "Egyptian Revolution".  This accomplishes precisely Jack and Shit, and Jack is too broke to show up.

If anything, instant communication has made people more shallow, not more involved.

I disagree.  Yes, there are more people who have a shallow understanding of world events than before.  But there are also more subject-matter experts - and all degrees in-between.  It's a network, an informational eco-system, and as such you can't just single out one element as being worthless when they all feed into and support each other.

But this has nothing to do with unemployment.  The masses have always had their diversions...500 years ago it consisted of nailing a cat to a post and head-butting it to death (no shit), and today it consists of playing Fallout 3, and pretending to be a participant in "Twitter revolutions".  The problem today is based more on NO FUCKING JOBS, and if that having trustafarians gush about Iran or Egypt on Facebook is a "happy trade off", then kill me right fucking now.

We can look at an under-developed nation and understand that if the people want change enough, they can get it if they're willing to get killed trying and strap sandwiches to their heads.  They have clear rules imposed upon them and having the courage to break them undermines the control imposed upon them.

Our rules are in our own minds.  The spiders who tell us to buy things which make us feel more comfortable and relaxed.

Our image of democracy is convincing enough to prevent mass demonstrations.  So how do we change our shithole situation?  A thousand "likes" does nothing.  Do we coordinate purchases to punish/reward corporations based on their employment practices?  How?  We can't even see through the consumerist smokescreen for long enough to agree on a collective will in the first place.  Simply put - I don't think we yet have a technological solution to our problems, though it is currently sufficient to topple unsuspecting dictatorships.

So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I disagree.  Yes, there are more people who have a shallow understanding of world events than before.  But there are also more subject-matter experts - and all degrees in-between.  It's a network, an informational eco-system, and as such you can't just single out one element as being worthless when they all feed into and support each other.

Okay, I'll bite.  What is actually being accomplished?

We can look at an under-developed nation and understand that if the people want change enough, they can get it if they're willing to get killed trying and strap sandwiches to their heads.  They have clear rules imposed upon them and having the courage to break them undermines the control imposed upon them.

Our rules are in our own minds.  The spiders who tell us to buy things which make us feel more comfortable and relaxed.

Our image of democracy is convincing enough to prevent mass demonstrations.  So how do we change our shithole situation?  A thousand "likes" does nothing.  Do we coordinate purchases to punish/reward corporations based on their employment practices?  How?  We can't even see through the consumerist smokescreen for long enough to agree on a collective will in the first place.  Simply put - I don't think we yet have a technological solution to our problems, though it is currently sufficient to topple unsuspecting dictatorships.

So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.

I don't see the value in this tradeoff.  No jobs plus vague, fuzzy feelings in our empty stomachs > Jobs?

[AFK]

So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.

No, it isn't.  That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".

The Egypt thing didn't happen all because of Twitter and Facebook.  That stuff would've been meaningless, without the human fuel, the motivation, behind it.  Twitter and Facebook were fine for setting up times and spreading information, but the actual fuel for that motivation was that the Egyptians said enough was enough and it was time to get OUT OF THE HOUSE and onto the street.

If our youth come away with the message that they can be part of a revolution without leaving their basement, then we're hopelessly screwed for at least the next generation or two.   

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.

No, it isn't.  That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".

The Egypt thing didn't happen all because of Twitter and Facebook.  That stuff would've been meaningless, without the human fuel, the motivation, behind it.  Twitter and Facebook were fine for setting up times and spreading information, but the actual fuel for that motivation was that the Egyptians said enough was enough and it was time to get OUT OF THE HOUSE and onto the street.

If our youth come away with the message that they can be part of a revolution without leaving their basement, then we're hopelessly screwed for at least the next generation or two.   

Roger and 3 other people like this comment.

[Captain Utopia]

I disagree.  Yes, there are more people who have a shallow understanding of world events than before.  But there are also more subject-matter experts - and all degrees in-between.  It's a network, an informational eco-system, and as such you can't just single out one element as being worthless when they all feed into and support each other.

Okay, I'll bite.  What is actually being accomplished?

Honestly?  I don't know that anything is being accomplished.

Right now, my three year old daughter "likes" the Egyptian revolution, in terms simple enough for her to understand.  I figure that's a foundation to build upon over the years - as education is an on-going process, not a destination.  It seems to me that if you vastly increase the number of people who have a rudimentary understanding of global events, then similarly, that's a foundation to build upon.  It's potential.

If it means that you end up with more subject-matter experts, then that would be quite an accomplishment.

That logic makes sense to me, but I can't prove it.

I don't see the value in this tradeoff.  No jobs plus vague, fuzzy feelings in our empty stomachs > Jobs?

No, but that's not the equation in my mind.  The job problem will only be solved when: minimal collective action > vested private interests.

We have a way to go, as the maximal collective action we can expect (voting) is demonstrably not sufficient.

[Adios]

So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.

No, it isn't.  That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".

The Egypt thing didn't happen all because of Twitter and Facebook.  That stuff would've been meaningless, without the human fuel, the motivation, behind it.  Twitter and Facebook were fine for setting up times and spreading information, but the actual fuel for that motivation was that the Egyptians said enough was enough and it was time to get OUT OF THE HOUSE and onto the street.

If our youth come away with the message that they can be part of a revolution without leaving their basement, then we're hopelessly screwed for at least the next generation or two.   

Roger and 3 other people like this comment.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I disagree.  Yes, there are more people who have a shallow understanding of world events than before.  But there are also more subject-matter experts - and all degrees in-between.  It's a network, an informational eco-system, and as such you can't just single out one element as being worthless when they all feed into and support each other.

Okay, I'll bite.  What is actually being accomplished?

Honestly?  I don't know that anything is being accomplished.

Right now, my three year old daughter "likes" the Egyptian revolution, in terms simple enough for her to understand.  I figure that's a foundation to build upon over the years - as education is an on-going process, not a destination.  It seems to me that if you vastly increase the number of people who have a rudimentary understanding of global events, then similarly, that's a foundation to build upon.  It's potential.

If it means that you end up with more subject-matter experts, then that would be quite an accomplishment.

That logic makes sense to me, but I can't prove it.

I don't see the value in this tradeoff.  No jobs plus vague, fuzzy feelings in our empty stomachs > Jobs?

No, but that's not the equation in my mind.  The job problem will only be solved when: minimal collective action > vested private interests.

We have a way to go, as the maximal collective action we can expect (voting) is demonstrably not sufficient.

1.  As available information increases, people are more likely to vote/act against their own best interests.  How do you think the teabaggers got started?

2.  If you don't know anything is being accomplished, then I have to write your argument off as Doctor Pangloss-esque rubbish.  Not trying to be offensive here, just saying that if you don't have a replacement for jobs lost, then I don't see how there's a tradeoff at all.  Miss three meals, and then tell me that twitter, etc, is a trade off you're happy with.