-6
Pathetic little troll. Goes to show how you know jackshit about the subject. What a fucking idiot. I'm done, it's extremely boring to beat on a dead horse.
2
KurosawaAnon wrote...
Until then, keep your biased opinions to yourselves.Surely you can't be serious. If someone were to keep their biased opinions to themselves, they would never give their opinion about anything. All opinions are biased. The only other option would be to tell you what you want to hear, and as such it would cease to be their opinion and would make discussion absolutely meaningless.
-4
JGPS wrote...
What an articulate reply. You show your intelligence with every response :D.There's no use in responding to some fucking 15 year old idiotic child that can't understand simple concepts. Like I said, go do the studies I have done, work in the domain of social engineering, psychology and history and then we'll talk. You know fuckall, I'm not going to waste my time to someone who can't understand anything even when deeply explained with the smallest of details.
Have it your way kid, you know fuckall, you're just a fish.
1
KurosawaAnon wrote...
I'm not going to keep reading the same old biased shit by a guy that is convinced that laws were put in place because of human's natural behaviour.There is over 7 billion people on planet earth, a lot of different types of behaviour goes into the category of 'natural', but if you think all laws ever made are simply designed by some Illuminati New World Order group to control the masses, you are an idiot.
Just because you have been learning social engineering, understanding human behaviour, history and psychology in collage by some teacher and accept everything on face value, you are only as smart or stupid as the teacher. And clearly the teacher is as stupid as you are.
KurosawaAnon wrote...
Just another little brainwashed child that doesn't understand laws were made to protect the system. The more you protect and restrict the citizens, the easier it is for you to have control over them.And who was the person or people who created this system huh? I'm pretty sure it wasn't aliens.
We created that system to control our selves, don't you get that? Our species understood thousands of years ago that the best way to survive is to have rules.
KurosawaAnon wrote...
Yes the leaders are elected by the citizens but have you seen the result? For example in the US every fucking time for many years you've elected the wrong president, same goes for a bunch of countries. It's sad that you fail to understand that, hell I wouldn't even be surprised if you were religious and believe in god and all of the bible bullshit. It's typical.Define "wrong president".
If you ACTUALLY HAD studied any of things you claim you have, you would understand what we are talking about. There is very big difference between the time when we didn't comprehend the meaning of 'law' and today. Maybe you forgot to study human social evolution, because it sounds like you are one of these religious people if in your mind everything is controlled by the Illuminati or some other bullshit.
KurosawaAnon wrote...
You just can't accept the fact that people follow the laws because they can't afford to break the law, not because they don't want to.You just can't accept the fact that most people follow the laws because they believe the laws are correct and that they should be followed. You just might have this 'bad boy' image you have to hold, because you think it is cool when you don't follow the rules.
Sure there are many laws that i don't agree with and think are just plain stupid, and maybe the only reason i don't break them is because the risk of going to jail, but if you think every single law ever made is to control us by few individuals, then you are an idiot.
KurosawaAnon wrote...
Why do you think, theres so many corrupt politicians and higher ups? Because they can break the law, it's easier for them, they have the money and the influence, theft, murder, they do all of that.Calling somebody a thief and a murderer is pretty big accusation, but obviously you can't prove any of that shit. You sound exactly like those conspiracy theorist and the people who think our planet is controlled by the Illuminati, hehe i was right about you.
Without a doubt corruption exists, without a doubt some politicians only care about the benefits they get for themselves, but the wrong in your reasoning is that you think everything and everybody is behind in some conspiracy.
KurosawaAnon wrote...
They don't want you to be safe for your own sake, they need you to be safe to keep things clean and running. With chaos, the government can do fuck all.What ever 'wrong' you think governments are doing, that is the fault of the people for letting such government in power. It is even more fault of the people for not doing anything about the government once they do something 'wrong'. People are too ignorant or passive or just don't care about what their government does, as long as it doesn't do too much 'wrong'.
KurosawaAnon wrote...
You are not born with the ideal of getting a job, going to school, not spitting on the ground, theft, murder or whatsoever. They didn't have that kind of shit thousands of years ago, they didn't have some asshat donut guy coming around to stop a fight and putting them in a wood cage.Maybe i wasn't, but i live in a system and in a world where that is required in order to succeed. Without connections i have to go to school and to work to get what i want.
Again, if you think theft and murder are ok to do at any point for any reason, there is a word for that, psychopath. Jail isn't the only reason you don't break those laws now are they? If you started murdering people just for the pleasure of it, it wouldn't be long before you are murdered. And right there is the reason why such a law was invented.
You are just too naive, young and stupid to understand that.
KurosawaAnon wrote...
LAWS, have always been a way to control people, to limit their actions in a result of having minimal damage and divergence in people's way of acting, the roman empire, 1600's, 1700's and every damn single time periods have always been this way since laws, rules, ethic were implanted to control a large group of people. Wake up, you're not fucking free, you're not safe.And you know why laws are there to control people? So that psychopaths like you don't go around killing everybody as they please without any repercussions. The masses accept the laws because that is the best way to survive! Not every human being wants to be anarchyst wanna be little kid like you. Even though we want our selves to succeed more, but we also want other people to succeed too!
KurosawaAnon wrote...
Laws and ethics are socially constructed and yet you keep believing they're things people actually have naturally in them but in reality you're just too fucking scared and weak to face the fact that it's not true, you'd rather just live in your bullshit dreams thinking everything's perfect, everyone's nice, this and that, that humans naturally fucking have laws in their head, that's not the case.Psychopaths are people who don't naturally have empathy for other people, who don't have any type of morals what so ever. Most of the people how ever do have those things naturally, they were born with it. We also have something that is called instincts. Most of us instinctively would help a child in need, i don't know about you how ever, since you are so educated about people. Don't put everybody in the same category as you are in, because that is simply a lie.
KurosawaAnon wrote...
We're not the little angelic creatures you think we are, at all. There's a reason why theres so much murder and crime in third world countries and yet even here, with laws, there still is.Yes, there is a reason, if only you knew those reasons, you would realize how stupid your comments here are.
Without a doubt some people there and here kill others just for the pleasure of it or because they can, but if you think that is the only reason, then you are simply a lost sheep.
KurosawaAnon wrote...
Say what you want, I honestly couldn't give two shits about a few biased opinions by some hentai-addicted random people on the internet.Of coarse you wouldn't, because just these few 'biased' opinions rocked your world view to the ground, and you hate that, and don't wanna admit you were wrong.
KurosawaAnon wrote...
Also, I'm most likely older than you so you can keep your "Too young" bullshit to yourself. Once you've done years and years of study and practice in social engineering, understanding human behaviour, history, psychology and whatnot, we'll talk.Wouldn't that be bad if younger people are smarter than some collage educated nut head?
I think it would.
KurosawaAnon wrote...
Until then, keep your biased opinions to yourselves.I don't have to study the things you have, because clearly it would only dumb me down to the same level you are currently. Makes me sad to think about it.
2
Someone I know is part of a women's group at work(they discuss feminist ideas, hold events to empower women, stuff like that). The other day she decided to look into equal pay for women and men and noticed a pattern. Where she works, yes, men do get paid more than women, but that's because 80% of the women working there work part time for various reasons. By working part time there is less chance of being offered the same opportunities as guys(like being offered a higher position) and also you obviously won't earn as much as the guys/ladies working full time.
Just thought it was interesting that someone looked past the "he's got a dick, so youre giving him more money" thing and actually looked into WHY are they actually getting paid more.
Just thought it was interesting that someone looked past the "he's got a dick, so youre giving him more money" thing and actually looked into WHY are they actually getting paid more.
2
Psychopaths are people who don't naturally have empathy for other people, who don't have any type of morals what so ever.
Actually psychopaths are people without emotional responses. The lack the 'natural law' I'm talking about. A few psychopaths I know are very legalistic because they understand how and why many laws (certainly not all) work and they see it as irrational to break them. The commoner has ethics because he fears the law, the philosopher because he understands them.
Of course psychopaths without that level of understanding are major problems.
Heh, Kurosawa can't tell the difference between 'natural' and 'artificial' law because he's never had authority over anyone, how could he with that philosophy. Little omega punk thinks he's tough for hating society and ignoring others.
I've made people follow rules just because a certain thing annoyed me or I wanted a certain thing done. I've made rules of my whim for my slave-girl too. It's pretty obvious when a rule is enacted for the benefit of an individual or group and when it's something people naturally know and intuit.
KurosawaAnon wrote...
JGPS wrote...
What an articulate reply. You show your intelligence with every response :D.There's no use in responding to some fucking 15 year old idiotic child that can't understand simple concepts. Like I said, go do the studies I have done, work in the domain of social engineering, psychology and history and then we'll talk. You know fuckall, I'm not going to waste my time to someone who can't understand anything even when deeply explained with the smallest of details.
Have it your way kid, you know fuckall, you're just a fish.
You insult yourself in your inability to construct an actual reply. As much as you posture about knowing things you're talking to people that actually understand sociology and psychology and history.
The studies you've done come from only one philosophy of humanity, as such it's unsurprising that you're as crap at defending them as the worst kind of blind-faith fanatic. That's all you have, the way of thinking you've been indoctrinated into, and you can't fathom why different people might disagree.
1
Just some food for thought. Kind of shows you where large groups under the banners of feminism have taken the name to impose such unrealistic expectations on groups.
2
I am a woman and do not associate with the tenets of feminism. A lot of my female friends consider that "blasphemous and harmful to the cause" but I'll elaborate on specifically why I feel the way I feel.
First and foremost, rape is not something that solely occurs between a man to a woman. For true equality I'd really like to see more acknowledgement on men who are also the victims of rape. I absolutely loathe men and women who claim that men "cannot" be raped, that's entirely untrue. I have a huge issue with seeing news reporters essentially laughing and mocking the very idea of female pedophiles like it's some mythical creature. Female pedophiles DO exist that rape both male and female children. It's not anything to be laughed or mocked about.
If feminism really wanted to push for true gender equality they'd acknowledge the severe inequality that exists towards both sexes. One such example : breast cancer awareness versus testicular cancer awareness. Both are severe and deadly yet one gets an overwhelming support base whilst the other gets pushed into the shadows. Even laughed about. Testicular cancer is not now, nor will ever be, "funny".
Men essentially being labeled as "pedophiles" for showing any form of friendliness towards children. I see it all the time where fathers will take their children to the park and get dirty looks shot at him from all the women assuming he's there simply to "oggle" at the children. That is inherently wrong just as it's also inherently wrong to label a woman a "slut" simply for wearing shorts and a tank top on a hot day, or assuming she's "asking for it". No one, both male or female, is ever "asking" to be raped or assaulted. That's just absurd.
Men being classified as "whimps" or "pussies" for holding a profession that in society's eyes is more of a "woman's" job. I see it all the time where professions like "male nurse" is flat-out ridiculed. Can someone explain to me why that's funny? I have encountered many wonderful and helpful male nurses, I do not consider them less manly or in any way amusing.
I could go on forever, at the core of this subject I do not associate with the tenets of feminism because to claim that one gender is persecuted and then to turn around and persecute the other gender, is hypocritical and wrong.
I am for overall equality and fair-treatment of EVERYONE, man, woman, trans-gender, gay, straight, anything.
First and foremost, rape is not something that solely occurs between a man to a woman. For true equality I'd really like to see more acknowledgement on men who are also the victims of rape. I absolutely loathe men and women who claim that men "cannot" be raped, that's entirely untrue. I have a huge issue with seeing news reporters essentially laughing and mocking the very idea of female pedophiles like it's some mythical creature. Female pedophiles DO exist that rape both male and female children. It's not anything to be laughed or mocked about.
If feminism really wanted to push for true gender equality they'd acknowledge the severe inequality that exists towards both sexes. One such example : breast cancer awareness versus testicular cancer awareness. Both are severe and deadly yet one gets an overwhelming support base whilst the other gets pushed into the shadows. Even laughed about. Testicular cancer is not now, nor will ever be, "funny".
Men essentially being labeled as "pedophiles" for showing any form of friendliness towards children. I see it all the time where fathers will take their children to the park and get dirty looks shot at him from all the women assuming he's there simply to "oggle" at the children. That is inherently wrong just as it's also inherently wrong to label a woman a "slut" simply for wearing shorts and a tank top on a hot day, or assuming she's "asking for it". No one, both male or female, is ever "asking" to be raped or assaulted. That's just absurd.
Men being classified as "whimps" or "pussies" for holding a profession that in society's eyes is more of a "woman's" job. I see it all the time where professions like "male nurse" is flat-out ridiculed. Can someone explain to me why that's funny? I have encountered many wonderful and helpful male nurses, I do not consider them less manly or in any way amusing.
I could go on forever, at the core of this subject I do not associate with the tenets of feminism because to claim that one gender is persecuted and then to turn around and persecute the other gender, is hypocritical and wrong.
I am for overall equality and fair-treatment of EVERYONE, man, woman, trans-gender, gay, straight, anything.
1
I wasn't looking to get in on this, but I thought this kinda needed to be address. I'll put down my line in the sand right here, I don't agree with anything Kurosawa has said, he lost all credibility the second he resorted to slander, and I refuse to bother with it.
What ever 'wrong' you think governments are doing, that is the fault of the people for letting such government in power. It is even more fault of the people for not doing anything about the government once they do something 'wrong'. People are too ignorant or passive or just don't care about what their government does, as long as it doesn't do too much 'wrong'.
The people can only hold the government powers accountable when they "know". Press/News outlets were given certain rights and immunities to act as a type of monitoring system for the government, acting as an impartial monitor for government over reach and corruption and then reporting on such instances to the public. But this isn't the case for all major and many minor American News outlets anymore...
The people can't be held accountable for not becoming upset for things they're unaware of. And when they do know, what should be done? I've thought about this for a long time, but how do you fix a system, with said system, when it's already corrupt. I still haven't gotten an answer, but the protest in Missouri may give me one, rather I like it or not...
On topic
"I've noticed about feminists is that they extremely resistant to anyone questioning feminist ideas"
I'd say this is true for many groups of people who attach themselves to a group or movement, they become swept up in herd mentality and whatever evolving consensus the group develops individuals are more inclined to adopt. The same could be said about Republicans and Democrats, fan's of games or anime, readers, children/young adults belonging to different schools, city, districts, different gangs/groups in opposition, religion and/or ideologies.
It's also a standard, in the US, to hold someone who is willing to admit they may be wrong as "weak", that admitting fault is weakness and that a "strong person" sticks to their statements, beliefs, and convictions. To the point people rather make themselves out to be fools rather than humble themselves to their own ignorance. And this is a wide spread and deeply influential trait of "being an American" that will not disappear anytime soon, most find no fault in this.
As for feminist themselves, to my understanding, it's not some giant collective to which, all who label themselves as, belongs too, but a collection of different opinions and standards that individuals come to on their own or are given by influential people who anoint themselves as spokesperson (example Anita Sarkeesian). A kind of "Anonymous" where people can loosely label themselves as, with "equality for female gender" being the only consistency.
As for my disposition, I have none, I don't believe in any movement, ideology, or system outside of science. I create and shift my opinions to each situation.
Coconutt wrote...
KurosawaAnon wrote...
They don't want you to be safe for your own sake, they need you to be safe to keep things clean and running. With chaos, the government can do fuck all.What ever 'wrong' you think governments are doing, that is the fault of the people for letting such government in power. It is even more fault of the people for not doing anything about the government once they do something 'wrong'. People are too ignorant or passive or just don't care about what their government does, as long as it doesn't do too much 'wrong'.
The people can only hold the government powers accountable when they "know". Press/News outlets were given certain rights and immunities to act as a type of monitoring system for the government, acting as an impartial monitor for government over reach and corruption and then reporting on such instances to the public. But this isn't the case for all major and many minor American News outlets anymore...
Spoiler:
The people can't be held accountable for not becoming upset for things they're unaware of. And when they do know, what should be done? I've thought about this for a long time, but how do you fix a system, with said system, when it's already corrupt. I still haven't gotten an answer, but the protest in Missouri may give me one, rather I like it or not...
On topic
"I've noticed about feminists is that they extremely resistant to anyone questioning feminist ideas"
I'd say this is true for many groups of people who attach themselves to a group or movement, they become swept up in herd mentality and whatever evolving consensus the group develops individuals are more inclined to adopt. The same could be said about Republicans and Democrats, fan's of games or anime, readers, children/young adults belonging to different schools, city, districts, different gangs/groups in opposition, religion and/or ideologies.
It's also a standard, in the US, to hold someone who is willing to admit they may be wrong as "weak", that admitting fault is weakness and that a "strong person" sticks to their statements, beliefs, and convictions. To the point people rather make themselves out to be fools rather than humble themselves to their own ignorance. And this is a wide spread and deeply influential trait of "being an American" that will not disappear anytime soon, most find no fault in this.
As for feminist themselves, to my understanding, it's not some giant collective to which, all who label themselves as, belongs too, but a collection of different opinions and standards that individuals come to on their own or are given by influential people who anoint themselves as spokesperson (example Anita Sarkeesian). A kind of "Anonymous" where people can loosely label themselves as, with "equality for female gender" being the only consistency.
As for my disposition, I have none, I don't believe in any movement, ideology, or system outside of science. I create and shift my opinions to each situation.
0
bakapink wrote...
It's also a standard, in the US, to hold someone who is willing to admit they may be wrong as "weak", that admitting fault is weakness and that a "strong person" sticks to their statements, beliefs, and convictions. To the point people rather make themselves out to be fools rather than humble themselves to their own ignorance. And this is a wide spread and deeply influential trait of "being an American" that will not disappear anytime soon, most find no fault in this.Rather than an American trait I think this is a trait of human beings in general and especially prevalent on the internet.
0
Reaperzwei wrote...
bakapink wrote...
It's also a standard, in the US, to hold someone who is willing to admit they may be wrong as "weak", that admitting fault is weakness and that a "strong person" sticks to their statements, beliefs, and convictions. To the point people rather make themselves out to be fools rather than humble themselves to their own ignorance. And this is a wide spread and deeply influential trait of "being an American" that will not disappear anytime soon, most find no fault in this.Rather than an American trait I think this is a trait of human beings in general and especially prevalent on the internet.
You may be right. I haven't had many interactions with people outside of the states to know if this trait is consistent in other cultures, but I do know it is openly regarded with high praise here in the states.
As for the internet I find it kind of different. As a place that does not shame but instead enables belligerent behavior. A place where you can adopt new customs and behavior that would normally not be displayed in Real Life relations, such as trolling. Where people create and express a less self restrained and less thoughtful mask (appearance). I don't personally know if this is a good or bad thing overall, and often wonder. As you can tell, this is an incomplete thought/view on my part, but I do see and can agree with what you mean.
1
bakapink wrote...
The people can only hold the government powers accountable when they "know". The people can't be held accountable for not becoming upset for things they're unaware of. And when they do know, what should be done? I've thought about this for a long time, but how do you fix a system, with said system, when it's already corrupt. I still haven't gotten an answer, but the protest in Missouri may give me one, rather I like it or not.I understand that the people don't know what their government is doing all the time and can't be hold accountable for things it doesn't know.
bakapink wrote...
"I've noticed about feminists is that they extremely resistant to anyone questioning feminist ideas"I'd say this is true for many groups of people who attach themselves to a group or movement, they become swept up in herd mentality and whatever evolving consensus the group develops individuals are more inclined to adopt. The same could be said about Republicans and Democrats, fan's of games or anime, readers, children/young adults belonging to different schools, city, districts, different gangs/groups in opposition, religion and/or ideologies.
There is difference in reason for somebody to join in gang or to play video games. Somebody questioning your liking to anime is different from questioning an idea you hold. That idea maybe wrong or stupid and it can be challenged, but liking to read or play video games has nothing to do with any idea or a stance you may hold, playing video games is a activity you enjoy and that is pretty much it.
The thing with which school, city or gang you may belong to is about tribalism and patriotism, but still not about holding a certain idea. People get a very important sense of feeling from the place they were born, from the group they belong, from the school they go to and i think that is all about belonging to a group for the sake of being part of that certain group.
0
Coconutt wrote...
bakapink wrote...
"I've noticed about feminists is that they extremely resistant to anyone questioning feminist ideas"I'd say this is true for many groups of people who attach themselves to a group or movement, they become swept up in herd mentality and whatever evolving consensus the group develops individuals are more inclined to adopt. The same could be said about Republicans and Democrats, fan's of games or anime, readers, children/young adults belonging to different schools, city, districts, different gangs/groups in opposition, religion and/or ideologies.
There is difference in reason for somebody to join in gang or to play video games. Somebody questioning your liking to anime is different from questioning an idea you hold. That idea maybe wrong or stupid and it can be challenged, but liking to read or play video games has nothing to do with any idea or a stance you may hold, playing video games is a activity you enjoy and that is pretty much it.
The thing with which school, city or gang you may belong to is about tribalism and patriotism, but still not about holding a certain idea. People get a very important sense of feeling from the place they were born, from the group they belong, from the school they go to and i think that is all about belonging to a group for the sake of being part of that certain group.
I might be misinterpreting, so to cover how I understood your reply. But first, I defined "group or movement" and used games, anime, readers (for the time I couldn't think to use books), ect as examples of different types of subject matters groups/movements could center around that people can belong too.
If your saying that activities involving video games, anime, reading, other forms of entertainment media can not hold and convey political, social, economic, and/or ideological ideas and views, I strongly disagree with you.
If your saying that the first (if) is somehow separate from the enjoyment any individual may have with said activity, or, that it has no bearings on there further involvement with, I once again strongly disagree with you.
If your saying that people can not feel a sense of "belonging too" with games, anime, and/or literature or their associated communities, such as WoW and other MMO communities, or anime communities such as Con's or the "Haruhi" movement back when the show was/finished/continued airing, then I, again, strongly disagree.
"...all about belonging to a group for the sake of being part of that certain group."
You don't think that bandwagon mentality can apply to games? That people can hear of a game (Monster Hunter and Dark Souls in this example), play a game because others do, and attempt to assimilate themselves into those groups for attention, companionship, and recognition? Adopting the views of the group towards games or even unrelated ones, in order to better adapt to their new associates, or simply to expand their perceptions?
A perfect example of political/social and ideological views in relation to entertainment, specifically video games, is the woman I listed before, Anita Sarkeesian and her brief, obscured, inspection of video game history to present.
"The thing with which school, city or gang you may belong to is about tribalism and patriotism, but still not about holding a certain idea."
This statement I find particularly... So a person can not choose to belong to a school/city they wish to be apart of because their idea of it represents something they want to be apart of?
That gangs can not represent a standard or desire sought for by the members? That members can not be apart of a gang while holding goals within or outside of it directly or indirectly associated with?
Also, your using patriotism incorrectly. And I find your over simplification of gangs as Tribalism to be somewhat of a disservice towards the understanding of. Wikipedia/Merraim/Google's definitions in relation towards institutional (bullying) and community (Central American) gang violence, where members join not through a manner of fidelity and community but for social and/or physical survival.
"Somebody questioning your liking to anime is different from questioning an idea you hold."
How is questioning your likes (anime) different than questioning ideals? The subject matter differs, but it's still the questioning of another's values either way.
0
bakapink wrote...
If your saying that activities involving video games, anime, reading, other forms of entertainment media can not hold and convey political, social, economic, and/or ideological ideas and views, I strongly disagree with you.No, i agree, they can hold or convey political, social, economic, and/or ideological ideas and views. But i seriously doubt people come here for example because of any of those things, or play GTA 5 for those things.
Surely they can have ideological background as to why they enjoy something rather than something else, surely people read certain type of books or watch certain type of movies that hold their views on certain subject.
bakapink wrote...
If your saying that the first (if) is somehow separate from the enjoyment any individual may have with said activity, or, that it has no bearings on there further involvement with, I once again strongly disagree with you.It is totally possible what ever it is you said here, but i argue people use entertainment because of the entertainment for the most part. Surely you use entertainment that falls in line with your ideological views, feminist might not play games, watch movies or read books that they consider sexist, but for most part people use entertainment because of the entertainment, not because it holds some kind of political agenda (without a doubt some people use anything for that very reason).
bakapink wrote...
If your saying that people can not feel a sense of "belonging too" with games, anime, and/or literature or their associated communities, such as WoW and other MMO communities, or anime communities such as Con's or the "Haruhi" movement back when the show was/finished/continued airing, then I, again, strongly disagree.I did not say that.
What i am saying is, for the most part, people do not join in game communities, anime communities or book communities because of political or ideological views. They join in those communities because the community shares a like minded enjoyment of certain activity, like games, anime or books.
bakapink wrote...
"...all about belonging to a group for the sake of being part of that certain group."You don't think that bandwagon mentality can apply to games? That people can hear of a game (Monster Hunter and Dark Souls in this example), play a game because others do, and attempt to assimilate themselves into those groups for attention, companionship, and recognition? Adopting the views of the group towards games or even unrelated ones, in order to better adapt to their new associates, or simply to expand their perceptions?
And how does that quote not affirm what you just wrote?
People go against what they themselves believe in order to be part of the group. You might hate bullying other students, but you do it in order to be part of the 'popular' group because they do it. You might not believe in feminist views, but you be part of it because so many of your friends believe in it.
bakapink wrote...
A perfect example of political/social and ideological views in relation to entertainment, specifically video games, is the woman I listed before, Anita Sarkeesian and her brief, obscured, inspection of video game history to present.Anita Sarkeesian is trying to prove a point by explaining how she thinks all of video game industry is sexist. I doubt she became feminist because she played video games (i could be wrong).
My previous post was not a 100% factual description of everybody, my point was that for most part for most people, they enjoy entertainment because of the entertainment.
bakapink wrote...
"The thing with which school, city or gang you may belong to is about tribalism and patriotism, but still not about holding a certain idea."This statement I find particularly... So a person can not choose to belong to a school/city they wish to be apart of because their idea of it represents something they want to be apart of?
For most part i doubt it. Some people do move to another city, school or country because it is more friendlier to your belief, but for most part people move for totally different reasons like economic.
bakapink wrote...
That gangs can not represent a standard or desire sought for by the members? That members can not be apart of a gang while holding goals within or outside of it directly or indirectly associated with?Yes, they can. But yet again, i argue most people join gangs because of the street or city they were born in or for the opportunity of 'easy money' and not because a certain street gang represents an ideological view on something.
bakapink wrote...
Also, your using patriotism incorrectly.No i don't. Many of us (i never said everybody 100%) feel patriotic towards our own countries simply because we were born in it.
bakapink wrote...
And I find your over simplification of gangs as Tribalism to be somewhat of a disservice towards the understanding of. Wikipedia/Merraim/Google's definitions in relation towards institutional (bullying) and community (Central American) gang violence, where members join not through a manner of fidelity and community but for social and/or physical survival.And what does that have to do with the notion that people join in because of ideological or political views?
If my earlier comment came out as "it is nothing but" then you misunderstood me. I argue it is for the most part that.
bakapink wrote...
"Somebody questioning your liking to anime is different from questioning an idea you hold."How is questioning your likes (anime) different than questioning ideals? The subject matter differs, but it's still the questioning of another's values either way.
Personal liking to certain things like anime or video games or taste in icecream are personality traits that cannot be disproof or challenged in the same way you can disproof or challenge an idea or political view.
Your liking in anime or video games doesn't effect anybody else except you. An idea or political view that you may or may not hold effects other people.
0
Spoiler:
Coconutt wrote...
bakapink wrote...
"Somebody questioning your liking to anime is different from questioning an idea you hold."How is questioning your likes (anime) different than questioning ideals? The subject matter differs, but it's still the questioning of another's values either way.
Personal liking to certain things like anime or video games or taste in icecream are personality traits that cannot be disproof or challenged in the same way you can disproof or challenge an idea or political view.
Your liking in anime or video games doesn't effect anybody else except you. An idea or political view that you may or may not hold effects other people.
Ice Cream falls under physical taste, making it a matter of the body, not one of the subjectivity of personality (mind).
Like of anime and video games appeals to a factor of personality in the same way political views, ideologies and ideals do. Both are different subject matters, so are approached differently, but they can be challenged regardless. People don't bother with anime often, but games are broken down and challenged quite often, check out a youtube channel called "Extra Credit" or "the Escapist"s Jimquisition for examples. Personal likes can change with experience (challenge) and time in the same way political, social, economic, ideological, ect can.
The content can always be broken down and challenged, and I think your viewing anime and games only in regards of personal value, while your looking at politics and ideals only as logical assessments. Where as, I believe, both are both and can be reversed in scale of significance.
The like in anime or video games does effect others when expressed, i.e. recommending to a friend, buying products, or using as a source of inspiration for their own, soon to go public, work. Even if not directly acted upon, it expands the perception and standards to which an individual can hold for said medium, and will affect further experiences with.
And political views and ideals can play just as big or as small a role as the person wants it too, like with anime or video games, if its not often acted upon it makes minor difference.
Coconutt wrote...
bakapink wrote...
And I find your over simplification of gangs as Tribalism to be somewhat of a disservice towards the understanding of. Wikipedia/Merraim/Google's definitions in relation towards institutional (bullying) and community (Central American) gang violence, where members join not through a manner of fidelity and community but for social and/or physical survival.And what does that have to do with the notion that people join in because of ideological or political views?
If my earlier comment came out as "it is nothing but" then you misunderstood me. I argue it is for the most part that.
I somewhat understood what you were saying, that they can be the same, but are often separate. I am saying that, no matter how minor or major, they always play a role, for or against, in all social activities.
An illegal street gang exist, for instance, because their desires can not be met through the political and economic systems' legal means, for example. Rather that's money, protection, violence, survival, ect... There is some ideal that can only be obtained through the social interactions within the gang that can not be obtained outside of it.
That everything works together to create a bigger picture, and no matter how small, there is no absence, is my argument....
Note: Sorry if there are any mistakes, preview doesn't work after so many characters, so I have to check how it looks after posting it. And in pre-post state, it's harder for me to identify problems.
1
bakapink wrote...
I'm not saying "solely because".Neither am i.
bakapink wrote...
Since you seemed to be insinuating that they had nothing to do with one another.I made it very clear that it is totally possible for people to enjoy entertainment and other activity because of their political or ideological views.
bakapink wrote...
Take for instance the amount of people who became upset with the Last of Us for Joel's choices (no spoilers), finding discontent with and harshly viewing it due to their own perceptions of what should and shouldn't be done, regardless of circumstances and individuality. The game didn't start as a debate about ideologies (perception of what a main character should be), but it was made into one when people found content they couldn't agree with or accept.Yes, even me and my friends talked about the things Joel did in the game and whether we would do the same things, but still for us the game was great entertainment and enjoyment because the game was really good. Our personal views didn't effect on what we thought about the game and it didn't ruin the enjoyment of the game.
I say it again: I never advocated that 100% of the population thinks the way i suggested, i only argue most of the people don't get into entertainment because of their personal views and their personal views also don't effect their overall experience with the entertainment.
bakapink wrote...
"... but for most part people use entertainment because of the entertainment..."I'll cut back my assumptions, so I'll ask... What does this mean?
People either don't let their own political or ideological views effect what and how they enjoy entertainment what ever it might be OR it simply doesn't effect at all what and how they enjoy entertainment what ever it might be (anime, games, books, other activity, etc).
bakapink wrote...
Choosing not to make a statement is still making a statement.But if you think that is what everybody has in their mind when people actively live their lives, you are wrong. If you think every choice we make is in the hopes of making a some kind of statement, you are wrong.
I didn't join the FAKKU! community in order to make a statement, I am not part of the Dota 2 community in order to make a statement.
bakapink wrote...
"People get a very important sense of feeling from the place they were born, from the group they belong, from the school they go to and i think that is all about belonging to a group for the sake of being part of that certain group."How? Because the whole sentence is insinuating, the reply itself is stating, that belonging to a social group, centered around territory/location, differs from groups centered around entertainment, or political views and ideologies, in mentality and desires, and I am am saying I disagree.
It differs because you had zero percent choice or involvement in choosing what country or city you were born in. That gives it a different feeling than what sport you are playing or what games you are playing or what music you are listening.
I have heard a saying go: "No matter who you are or what you do, you will always be an American!"
bakapink wrote...
Anime, manga, Japanese literature, rather poorly in most cases, but rather well in some, displays bullying as, not a means to climb a social ladder to fame, but as a means to prevent harm to self and ultimately becoming the victims themselves. It is done as a means of self protection, physical and mental in this case, for some to join groups/gangs. You could argue it's about finding and maintaining a place in the social order, but this wasn't stated.And once again, i never said nobody joins ever for any other reason but mine. What i argue is that most people join in because they want to be part of a group that has same interests as you do. That is all i am saying.
The same thing applies to the feminist thing, so i didn't put your quote in.
bakapink wrote...
I'll ask... What makes entertainment, entertaining for an individual? You keep trowing around "entertainment" as an answer to itself... but what is it and how does it work?Any type of entertainment is a activity that gives a certain individual enjoyment from that activity. Makes them feel happy, makes them feel good, so on and so fort. And because we are social animals, most of us enjoy it more in a group.
bakapink wrote...
Moving to a worse neighborhood is still choosing a preferred desire above other choices, such as the streets. It is still a belief, that your better off with a roof and water than without.Sigh, i don't know why i have to keep repeating my self to you.
I never said nobody ever joins to a different city or street or country because of political or ideological views. Why can't you already fukking understand that?
bakapink wrote...
Again, this is still a choice over others. They see something in the gangs, that's better (or maybe worse), than what they have, and want it over the other known available choices.So? Not every single choice we make is based on ideological or political views.
bakapink wrote...
Patriotism doesn't apply to city or gangs, it, like you said, applies to country, therefore it is incorrect in the used context.Who are you to say it only applies to the country? The same patriotic feeling you get from your country, you can get the same feeling from the city or street you were born in.
bakapink wrote...
Ice Cream falls under physical taste, making it a matter of the body, not one of the subjectivity of personality (mind).Subjectivity of our personality takes a lot of preferences from our own body. If you are over weight, you might only be attracted to over weight partners, if you are black, you might be only attracted to black partners, so on and so fort.
Just because your body likes chocolate ice cream better than vanilla, doesn't mean you have to choose chocolate all the time.
bakapink wrote...
Like of anime and video games appeals to a factor of personality in the same way political views, ideologies and ideals do. Both are different subject matters, so are approached differently, but they can be challenged regardless. People don't bother with anime often, but games are broken down and challenged quite often, check out a youtube channel called "Extra Credit" or "the Escapist"s Jimquisition for examples. Personal likes can change with experience (challenge) and time in the same way political, social, economic, ideological, ect can.People criticising games is totally different from criticising or challenging somebodys liking to a game. Somebody might point out how horrible the actual game is, maybe that is the very reason why somebody else enjoys it.
What is your challenge for me liking chocolate ice cream, or for me liking hentai? How is challenging those two the same as challenging Stalins view on communism?
You might say Stalin likes communism and is therefor a personality trait, but his liking to a ideological and political view supports that view and there for affects others.
My liking to products that others produce is totally different thing.
bakapink wrote...
The content can always be broken down and challenged, and I think your viewing anime and games only in regards of personal value, while your looking at politics and ideals only as logical assessments. Where as, I believe, both are both and can be reversed in scale of significance.Please explain this in more detail, because i have no idea what you mean when you say "both are both" or that "the content can always be broken down".
bakapink wrote...
The like in anime or video games does effect others when expressed, i.e. recommending to a friend, buying products, or using as a source of inspiration for their own, soon to go public, work. Even if not directly acted upon, it expands the perception and standards to which an individual can hold for said medium, and will affect further experiences with.Yes, everything effects everything. You being alive means that the job you hold, somebody else didn't get it. The girl/man you are married to, means somebody else didn't get to marry you or her/him. Everything effects everything.
But, to think that buying, using and recommending products (games, anime, music) to others effects the same way as supporting an political or ideological view is the same thing, you are wrong.
bakapink wrote...
I somewhat understood what you were saying, that they can be the same, but are often separate. I am saying that, no matter how minor or major, they always play a role, for or against, in all social activities.I am not 100% what you are talking about here, but i assume you mean political and ideological views being the reason for joining in.
Playing a minor or major role for some people, sure.
Always, no.
bakapink wrote...
An illegal street gang exist, for instance, because their desires can not be met through the political and economic systems' legal means, for example. Rather that's money, protection, violence, survival, ect... There is some ideal that can only be obtained through the social interactions within the gang that can not be obtained outside of it.I would like to know what this 'ideal' is that can be only obtained through the social interactions within the gang that can not be obtained outside of it and being the reason why people join in.
bakapink wrote...
That everything works together to create a bigger picture, and no matter how small, there is no absence, is my argument.This argument works only as an assumption, not as a fact.
What is your political or ideological view, or ideal for joining FAKKU! community?
I joined in because i enjoy hentai, and i wanted to chat with like minded people, there is no ideals or political views that made me join in that you say everybody has for everything.
1
I'd opine the difference you're debating is one of volition. In general when one takes an ideological stance it is one which they learned about and actively chosen. Baka's devout scientism for example. In that case you at very least agree to the basic tenets of that ideal and you more or less claim to adhere to the general tenets as well. Where by and large associations of culture or location are adjured passively, you are generally American becasue you are born in American, not because you necessarily adhere to any particular American ideal, you may even be against a great deal of ideals others consider to be 'American'.
Something you've chosen says a lot about you, something you happen to be associated with does not.
Now, one CAN choose to associate themselves with a nationality, a Scot can become a Canadian because they like Canada, and that's does say a lot about that particular Scot. It's just that most people don't make an active choice like that.
I'd general concede that ones choice in entertainment says a lot about their nature, and may say a lot about how they think, but often doesn't say much about their actual ideologies. For example I often enjoy competitive pvp style gaming because I'm an aggressive and competitive person, my more passive freinds shy away from it to the extent of preferring to play vs bots even in something like LOL. I generally view people that strongly prefer passive entertainment mediums (be it movies, tv, specator sports, ect) as very passive people and am yet to regret filing such a person as 'shallow' and 'dull' and moving on. Not that I hate any of those things, but the kind of person that watches a game and will play at the drop of a hat instead of just watching is going to be far more interesting and developed than on that sits. They're even better to WATCH a game with because they have a better understanding of what's going on and your average armchair quarterback.
People who prefer more interactive mediums like literature, games, actually playing sports, conversation, are more interesting and intellectually capable.
However the type of medium they consume says little about their ideologies unless it's really niche. Knowing someone like baseball says next to nothing about them. If it's something more niche, like they like to watch engineering documentaries, then it says a lot more about them. If it's something really niche, like they liked to watch Stein vs Bahnsen, then you can infer a lot about them and their ideologies.
Anime is pretty general, even Hentai isn't super-niche, mainstream games are very general, and very few of them have any major implications on what a person is like or what their ideologies actually are. Now, if someone says they like Biko 3 for gaming that says a fair bit about them. Happening to like Wow, DoTA, or LoL says very little.
Now that I've rambled back to feminism. Feminism as a basic ideal as of 1895 doesn't say a whole lot about an individual (though it does say some specific things which I'd already disagree with) and a lot of people still think of it in the basic, positive sense, so someone simply calling themselves a feminist doesn't mean that much. That's a big part of the problem with dealing with 'Feminists' and 'The Feminist Movement'. Unless they've stated exactly what they think feminism means to them they're a liquid target, they could mean anything or next to nothing by being feminist...
But a lot of people that call themselves feminist DO mean specific, idiotic, things that modern feminism supports and they do have the same terrible tunnel-vision mdarkanima mentioned. So I'll continue to be generally wary of any self-ascribe feminist.
Something you've chosen says a lot about you, something you happen to be associated with does not.
Now, one CAN choose to associate themselves with a nationality, a Scot can become a Canadian because they like Canada, and that's does say a lot about that particular Scot. It's just that most people don't make an active choice like that.
I'd general concede that ones choice in entertainment says a lot about their nature, and may say a lot about how they think, but often doesn't say much about their actual ideologies. For example I often enjoy competitive pvp style gaming because I'm an aggressive and competitive person, my more passive freinds shy away from it to the extent of preferring to play vs bots even in something like LOL. I generally view people that strongly prefer passive entertainment mediums (be it movies, tv, specator sports, ect) as very passive people and am yet to regret filing such a person as 'shallow' and 'dull' and moving on. Not that I hate any of those things, but the kind of person that watches a game and will play at the drop of a hat instead of just watching is going to be far more interesting and developed than on that sits. They're even better to WATCH a game with because they have a better understanding of what's going on and your average armchair quarterback.
People who prefer more interactive mediums like literature, games, actually playing sports, conversation, are more interesting and intellectually capable.
However the type of medium they consume says little about their ideologies unless it's really niche. Knowing someone like baseball says next to nothing about them. If it's something more niche, like they like to watch engineering documentaries, then it says a lot more about them. If it's something really niche, like they liked to watch Stein vs Bahnsen, then you can infer a lot about them and their ideologies.
Anime is pretty general, even Hentai isn't super-niche, mainstream games are very general, and very few of them have any major implications on what a person is like or what their ideologies actually are. Now, if someone says they like Biko 3 for gaming that says a fair bit about them. Happening to like Wow, DoTA, or LoL says very little.
Now that I've rambled back to feminism. Feminism as a basic ideal as of 1895 doesn't say a whole lot about an individual (though it does say some specific things which I'd already disagree with) and a lot of people still think of it in the basic, positive sense, so someone simply calling themselves a feminist doesn't mean that much. That's a big part of the problem with dealing with 'Feminists' and 'The Feminist Movement'. Unless they've stated exactly what they think feminism means to them they're a liquid target, they could mean anything or next to nothing by being feminist...
But a lot of people that call themselves feminist DO mean specific, idiotic, things that modern feminism supports and they do have the same terrible tunnel-vision mdarkanima mentioned. So I'll continue to be generally wary of any self-ascribe feminist.
0
Spoiler:
This has gone on far too long and is incredibly time consuming (2-3 hours for me, and I've only double checked once, normally 4-5 for corrections, edits/rewrites, and review) considering how little progress is being made for both of us. I'm going to stop here, I'll accept any errors, mistakes, or inconsistency on my part and any misunderstanding that could be made as my fault (since I want to be lazy, it is my fault). I'll also be holding the points we can't agree on as a difference of opinion. Seeing as we both seem to be getting frustrated, and have completely went off topic, I most likely won't continue, if I do end up replying, it will be to clarify something I'd feel a strong need to and regret in not replying too.
0
bakapink wrote...
"...but liking to read or play video games has nothing to do with any idea or a stance you may hold..."Was from you.
And this is why we have these multi page long debates and quote each other so we can correct ourselves and each other.
This is how we make progress, even if you and i never agree on this subject we are talking about.
bakapink wrote...
If it struck you hard enough to remember, and then, hold a conversation about, you still think it has no "effect" on you or your perception of the game? If so, there's nothing more I can say in this regard. And I'll leave this as a matter of opinion.No it didn't, because games are not meant to strike as reality, they are meant to tell us a story. What ever Joel did in the game and whether i agree or disagree with it, it was part of a story that the game developer wanted to tell me. The game it self was so good that i didn't let my own personality ruin the story and the game for me.
Again, for other people, it might have ruined the game for them, and that is their own loss.
bakapink wrote...
If all anime or western media started openly only teaching and conveying christian religious or republican morals and values, you don't think non-Christians or non-republicans (mostly minorities) enjoyment of would fall?100% it would, even for me.
bakapink wrote...
Because that's what your stating with "People either don't let their own political or ideological views effect what and how they enjoy entertainment...". Again, if you still don't understand what I am saying, I give it up to difference of opinion.I totally understand what you are saying, you just don't understand what i am saying. You claim everybody is effected in everything by their own ideological views. I claim not everybody is. That is all i am arguing for.
bakapink wrote...
I'm not saying that people are constantly consciously and with full understanding, making statements, but that all actions and choices people make conveys statements.I agree, but the relevance for the most part is very little to non-existent.
bakapink wrote...
I'm not talking about the city you are born in, I never once said it, I'm talking about the city you "choose", when you have the choice, to live in and represent yourself with, I was born in one city, but I choose to represent myself as another because I have lived in the other my entire life, but have always had the opportunity to represent myself as the other. I was born where I was due to it being the nearest hospital. And when I move, I will present myself as a citizen of the next town I live in, as opposed to continuing to represent myself as a member of the town I am in now.Anybody can make that choice, it is the reasons for that choice that matter. For others it is ideological, for others it is not.
bakapink wrote...
You brought into question their disposition of being something other than what you could imagine/state, but you did not do the same for their motives.The underlined part is the motive.
bakapink wrote...
So things that make us feel bad, upset, angry, disagreeable, uncertain, doubtful, ect? Or does your "so on" only continue the positive connotations?No. "Make you feel happy. Make you feel good." Those were just examples. If you take part in a activity that makes you feel bad, upset, angry, that is your choice.
bakapink wrote...
What bearing does this have on what I've said, and how does "... but for most part people use entertainment because of the entertainment..." and "...my point was that for most part for most people, they enjoy entertainment because of the entertainment" work for that argument?People use entertainment because that activity gives them enjoyment from it. It makes them feel happy, it makes them feel great. The value they get from entertainment is given to them by the entertainment, not some hidden agenda.
I don't know how to explain it better, so i am sorry if you don't understand it. Maybe if you tried to see this point from outside your own view you would.
bakapink wrote...
You're getting annoyed, funny.I am getting annoyed because i have to repeat myself to a wall, who can't seem to understand what other people write. Who can't seem to understand to look outside his/her own narrow world view. Who can't seem to provide anything to prove his/her own position.
bakapink wrote...
I'm the one repeating myself in stating that their is still an ideal situation/outcome in mind, for the person, in choosing, when you want to state that their isn't always one. Something you disregarded with "The thing with which school, city or gang you may belong to is about tribalism and patriotism, but still not about holding a certain idea."And i have given you every single argument you have maid, if only you could understand that. I am arguing against the notion you are trying to make that every decision on everything is based on some ideological view point or political view point. I am arguing that we humans do things just for the sake of doing that thing and nothing else.
Again if any of my arguments came out as "100% applies to everybody all the time", i have corrected myself on every post ever since. Please understand that! Even though it seems you don't since you are quoting my older posts.
bakapink wrote...
Since I feel this might be necessary later down the line and want to cover it before hand to avoid confusion...Ideal: "An ideal is a principle or value that one actively pursues as a goal, usually in the context of ethics" wiki
Idea: (1)"The aim or purpose" google
(2)"A standard of perfection: Ideal" merriam-webster.
A thing which one person doesn't need in order to pursue happiness through entertainment, such as anime, games, books, so on and so fort.
bakapink wrote...
I am someone who reads the definition?"Love for or devotion to one's country" merriam-webster and thefreedictionary
"devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty." dictionary and thefreedictionary.
"Patriotism is, generally speaking, cultural attachment to one's homeland or devotion to one's country, although interpretations of the term vary with context, geography and political ideology." from wikipedia.
Please try to understand the underlined part.
bakapink wrote...
If you want to make up what words mean and the right context for them, I can walk away now, because I really am not interested in that kind of crap. Let alone, someone who is exploding on me at the same time while pulling it off.I hope you have merriam-webster handy at all times, seems like without it you would be lost.
bakapink wrote...
How people subjectively view themselves in a mirror (with eyes) is not the same as how the nervous system interprets inputs. Again, if you want to make up definitions, interpretations, and how the body functions that only you understand.My interpretation of subjectivity fits perfectly to what you said and what you quoted from wiki, so i don't know what on earth you are talking about.
bakapink wrote...
I never said you couldn't choose something else, I don't get where your getting that from the quoted line?You were the one who said "...taste in icecream are personality traits...", what your taste buds favor is not a "choice" an individual decides on.
Everything about us is us, we don't have bodies, we are bodies. Our body is part of our personality, the same way our genes our part of our personality.
bakapink wrote...
People can not "like" political, social, economic, ideological views in the same way your depiction of "like" applies for anime and video games?Have i said that they cannot like those things?
No, i haven't.
bakapink wrote...
Like versus reason to think.I don't understand what you are trying get at with this, it doesn't explain anything.
bakapink wrote...
Broken down: There exist reason to not like anime, hentai, and games, in regards for games ones found in studies of "over exposure" (too much games) resulting in social withdrawals. Not that they are bad, but that there are bad qualities as well. But we don't consider these going in, or for the most part, you don't, you've made that somewhat clear.And explain how are those reasons tied to political or ideological views for not liking something.
bakapink wrote...
But in the same way someone can like video games and anime "without thinking about it", people can do the same for political or social ideologies. Such as a child (under 18) liking liberalism (example) because his father likes it, and growing into an adult with an unquestioning conviction due to the effect of influential figures, his father, on his values.Yes, people can like political or social ideologies, i have never said they couldn't, so i don't understand the point of this.
bakapink wrote...
Our values, are shaped by a level of contemplation of our subjectivity, the anime we like goes through the same thought process as the political or social party we like, just to varying degrees of contemplation and deconstruction from person to person.Again, how does this connect person liking anime and political and ideological views?
bakapink wrote...
New experiences with the entertainment medium, watching new animes for instance, challenges all previously perceived perceptions and expectations of what, anime, is and can be, modifying and expanding the perception of "anime". This is what happens when you challenge ideologies (ect) by introducing new ideologies, you share new ways of thinking and perceiving of something in the known universe.Again, how does this connect person liking anime and political and ideological views?
bakapink wrote...
Coconutt wrote...
bakapink wrote...
The like in anime or video games does effect others when expressed, i.e. recommending to a friend, buying products, or using as a source of inspiration for their own, soon to go public, work. Even if not directly acted upon, it expands the perception and standards to which an individual can hold for said medium, and will affect further experiences with.Yes, everything effects everything. You being alive means that the job you hold, somebody else didn't get it. The girl/man you are married to, means somebody else didn't get to marry you or her/him. Everything effects everything.
This statement exist in contrasts to "Your liking in anime or video games doesn't effect anybody else except you", which is what I was replying too, clarifying would be nice.
Yes, everything does effect everything when you "broke things down". There is also i thing called the butterfly effect.
But, the relevance of the effect can be argued for. How minimal or how large it is. The effect of you liking anime is so minimal to anybody else that it is very insignificant to non-existent. The effect does still exist, but to argue for it being relevant to other people in any major way, is almost laughable.
The effect also differs to person to person, it is not the same for everybody.
bakapink wrote...
Coconutt wrote...
But, to think that buying, using and recommending products (games, anime, music) to others effects the same way as supporting an political or ideological view is the same thing, you are wrong....I'll just say I disagree...
Very well argued position.
bakapink wrote...
Coconutt wrote...
bakapink wrote...
I somewhat understood what you were saying, that they can be the same, but are often separate. I am saying that, no matter how minor or major, they always play a role, for or against, in all social activities.I am not 100% what you are talking about here, but i assume you mean political and ideological views being the reason for joining in.
Playing a minor or major role for some people, sure.
Always, no.
Difference of opinion...
Yes, the other opinion is right, the other opinion is wrong.
You have given nothing to prove your point that everybody has some political or ideological views behind everything what they do.
bakapink wrote...
-Money, need to support self or family, but can only find it through illegal means, the gang. Specifically, no jobs to work, no government support, left to starve in the streets. (Many places in central and South America for a simplified example.) Some may simply want money to be able to live more lavishly, such as American mafia's and other crime syndicates.-Protection, gangs often terrorize people, in order to protect family or self, a person may join to keep themselves or others safe.
-Violence, some may simply want the power, justification, or an excuse for being able to commit violence against others, and these organizations give them that ideal opportunity. (Bloods and Crips, among others, to varying degrees.)
-Survival, more or less, a combination of money, protection, food, and other.
-ect, stuff that slips my mind.
These are a rough breakdown of the samples I gave for the "some ideal".
Again, i give you all that. My argument is not everybody joins for those reasons and certainly not everybody are in a situation where joining in a gang is the only way to obtain those things, but still join in.
People don't always 100% of the time have some political or ideological views behind on everything what they do.
bakapink wrote...
I don't have the material to refute that, so I'll leave it as you put it, "an assumption"There is no material to refute that.
bakapink wrote...
And Ideal, again not fixed...-A place where I can find art I enjoy
-Where I can find people to talk to
-Occasionally debate, for the goal of expanding my perceptions and self reflecting
-A non-hostile environment towards artistic expression and criticism
-Other things I am not consciously aware of
So in your head, absolutely everything is an ideal?
bakapink wrote...
Considering how little progress is being made for both of us.The lack of progress comes from you not understanding my position and the lack of proof you can provide for your position.