Now, as I mentioned in my first blog I believe that there is one main usage of the internet, porn. Today I am going to talk about porn and cyber sex, so if you do not wish to read about this I suggest you leave now.
Now, as I stated above I think that the most predominant usage of the internet is porn and cyber sex. This is because I have noticed that you can hardly click on a website without finding some reference or link to something to do with it, and in some cases it is not even hidden and is right there on a big flashing banner for everyone to see. It is even in online games such as World of Warcraft and Second Life, which have a decent percentage of users being children under the age of 18, so even they are not safe from it. Admittedly, though, the cyber sex that is seen on online games such as World of Warcraft and Second Life is often seen as a more comical thing for people then as a dirty deed (well unless your the parent watching your kid play the game but then I have to ask, why?).
Those who talk of internet porn and cyber sex as being 'addictive' I do see your point in that many do become addicted to it, but compared to many other addictive things such as marijuana and other drugs, cigarettes and alcohol, it is really not that bad as all it really affects is your social life, bank balance and internet usage, as opposed to slowly killing you from the inside or destroying most of your basic cognitive functions. Also on the topic of addiction to porn and cyber sex, is there a difference between that and those who are addicted to sex in itself? In my eyes the answer is yes and the main difference is that those who have fetishes or such forth can find things like that from a private source where they are not known and therefore can't be discriminated against.
For those of you who state that, and agree with the statement that, women are under or miss represented when researchers talk of porn and cyber sex I happen to agree. If you take the time to look at research done into the topic then women are vastly under-represented. Why is this? Is it because most of the research is performed by males who don't think that women are interested in it? Is it because the women themselves don't admit to it for reasons of fear or being misunderstood? Or is it simply because the researchers are too afraid to ask for fear of retaliation or what they might find?
Finally, I have to ask, where do you stand on this topic and why? And for those of you who feel that you have the right to tell others what is right and what is wrong, who gives you the privilege and ability to know what is right or wrong for any moral person and to tell them that your way is the only way to be truly happy? Many of us are very happy believing what we do so leave us alone.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Virtual Lives
Today I'm going to talk about something that I believe to be more fun and interesting...video games, in particular orpgs (online role-playing games) or other online games which involve the creation and use of an avatar persona. For those of you who are unaware (or just cant remember off the top of your mind) what an avatar is, it is the virtual or physical representation of the player in the virtual world of a game or other form of virtual or physical activity (such as say the table top Dungeons and Dragons).
Now, the most famous orpg (or mmorpg (massively multiplayer online role-playing game) in this case) is probably World of Warcraft. In this game like all others in which you the player create a persona, there is a set collection of potential models. It is in this creation of the character that the player first identifies with their new avatar persona as it looks, acts, and is named what they want it to be (or technically what they want it to be within the constraints of the Terms and Conditions of the game, as well as total number of letters allowed and removing, of course, names that are already taken).
Meadows (2008:51) argues that experiences create a grounding of belief. “People in virtual worlds build things, use them, sell them, trade them and discuss them. When another person confirms what I am seeing, places value on it, spends time working to pay for it, buys it, keeps it, uses it, talks about it, gets emotional about it, and then sells it – this tells me there is something real happening. The suspension of disbelief has become a grounding of belief”
Meadows raises a fair point here in that by removing or putting aside disbelief that means belief can be seen more clearly, however some people chose to belief and even see different things, in effect an illusion of reality. But whose to say that what they see is the illusion and that what we see is the reality? What if what someone else sees is the reality and all that we see is an illusion? But enough philosophical talk back to the case and point of virtual worlds. Meadows statement seems to be in reference to the newly rising game 'Second Life', where people can create and do almost anything and even earn real money through selling game items that are, in all technicality, nothing more then strings of codex on a computer system somewhere.
Personally, I disagree with Meadows statement as it is more than just the 'suspension of disbelief' that creates belief as different people believe different things. Some people believe in Christianity, some in Muslim, others in Pastafarianism and others still in Scientology. Just because someone beliefs in something different to you doesn't make it any less real to them or to you it just means that they have different things which govern them and that is fine, as what are we if not creatures of belief?
Now, the most famous orpg (or mmorpg (massively multiplayer online role-playing game) in this case) is probably World of Warcraft. In this game like all others in which you the player create a persona, there is a set collection of potential models. It is in this creation of the character that the player first identifies with their new avatar persona as it looks, acts, and is named what they want it to be (or technically what they want it to be within the constraints of the Terms and Conditions of the game, as well as total number of letters allowed and removing, of course, names that are already taken).
Meadows (2008:51) argues that experiences create a grounding of belief. “People in virtual worlds build things, use them, sell them, trade them and discuss them. When another person confirms what I am seeing, places value on it, spends time working to pay for it, buys it, keeps it, uses it, talks about it, gets emotional about it, and then sells it – this tells me there is something real happening. The suspension of disbelief has become a grounding of belief”
Meadows raises a fair point here in that by removing or putting aside disbelief that means belief can be seen more clearly, however some people chose to belief and even see different things, in effect an illusion of reality. But whose to say that what they see is the illusion and that what we see is the reality? What if what someone else sees is the reality and all that we see is an illusion? But enough philosophical talk back to the case and point of virtual worlds. Meadows statement seems to be in reference to the newly rising game 'Second Life', where people can create and do almost anything and even earn real money through selling game items that are, in all technicality, nothing more then strings of codex on a computer system somewhere.
Personally, I disagree with Meadows statement as it is more than just the 'suspension of disbelief' that creates belief as different people believe different things. Some people believe in Christianity, some in Muslim, others in Pastafarianism and others still in Scientology. Just because someone beliefs in something different to you doesn't make it any less real to them or to you it just means that they have different things which govern them and that is fine, as what are we if not creatures of belief?
Friday, April 2, 2010
Extremist and Hate groups
Since the moment the internet was created there has been one predominant usage, porn (but I'll get to that at another time). But now, a new type of usage is coming up, hate groups and extremist groups. I'm sure many of you have seen things such as 'The Blues Brothers' and other movies, or even in real life, where these groups of people were seen making public rally stands out in public locations and causing a stir. But in these technological ages these groups have taken to the internet to try and spread their messages further and faster.
Now if your like me, you dislike these groups for one main reason, they discriminate. In my younger years I was the target of forms of juvenile discrimination (also known as bullying)and as such I abhor anyone or any group who discriminates against any individual or group just because they don't like a few of them or because they are different. However that is unlikely to be the reason many of you object to hate and extremist groups (the bullying part that is), but I digress.
I recently saw a posting for this group called the 'Australia First Party', so being the inquisitive being I am I sought further information about it. This 'Party' is a hate group which wishes to revert Australia to what they consider to be a purer Australia, in effect a white Australia. This 'party' even goes so far as to support the events that transpired at the Cronulla Beach riots and claim it was a 'revolution' and the 'rebirth of Australian Nationalism'. They even go so far to make claims, in their own report clearly as no news station would report such derogatory, false, slanderous comments, that those who 'fought for Australia' were heroes and that the victims were actually the perpetrators of this event and that they are the true racists. My response to this group is that if you wish to revert to the 'true Australia' then effectively you yourselves need to bugger off as the original inhabitants of Australia were and are the Indigenous Australians, and we white folk are the colonists. Even then if you argue that point that the first fleet is then the 'true Australia' then unless you can trace your roots to being of 100% pure convict/colonist roots, then you yourselves are still not 'pure'. Is it just me or do you my readers see the obvious flaws in this groups points?
Back to the point on hate and extremist groups, is it just me or do there seem to be a lot of small groups all opposed to the same thing? It's like come on, can you obviously not tell that the group just over there is also opposed to the exact same thing? And even sadder, in my opinion, is that a large number of these groups are in countries that preach and celebrate tolerance for others, I'm looking at you America not just us here in Australia. How's this for you America '1st Amendment- Congress may not establish a religion, restrict free speech or press freedom, or deprive citizens of rights to assemble peacefully or petition the government.' i.e everyone has the right to live without oppression, so take that under your hat before you start persecuting those who you feel are of lesser value than yourselves.
Now if your like me, you dislike these groups for one main reason, they discriminate. In my younger years I was the target of forms of juvenile discrimination (also known as bullying)and as such I abhor anyone or any group who discriminates against any individual or group just because they don't like a few of them or because they are different. However that is unlikely to be the reason many of you object to hate and extremist groups (the bullying part that is), but I digress.
I recently saw a posting for this group called the 'Australia First Party', so being the inquisitive being I am I sought further information about it. This 'Party' is a hate group which wishes to revert Australia to what they consider to be a purer Australia, in effect a white Australia. This 'party' even goes so far as to support the events that transpired at the Cronulla Beach riots and claim it was a 'revolution' and the 'rebirth of Australian Nationalism'. They even go so far to make claims, in their own report clearly as no news station would report such derogatory, false, slanderous comments, that those who 'fought for Australia' were heroes and that the victims were actually the perpetrators of this event and that they are the true racists. My response to this group is that if you wish to revert to the 'true Australia' then effectively you yourselves need to bugger off as the original inhabitants of Australia were and are the Indigenous Australians, and we white folk are the colonists. Even then if you argue that point that the first fleet is then the 'true Australia' then unless you can trace your roots to being of 100% pure convict/colonist roots, then you yourselves are still not 'pure'. Is it just me or do you my readers see the obvious flaws in this groups points?
Back to the point on hate and extremist groups, is it just me or do there seem to be a lot of small groups all opposed to the same thing? It's like come on, can you obviously not tell that the group just over there is also opposed to the exact same thing? And even sadder, in my opinion, is that a large number of these groups are in countries that preach and celebrate tolerance for others, I'm looking at you America not just us here in Australia. How's this for you America '1st Amendment- Congress may not establish a religion, restrict free speech or press freedom, or deprive citizens of rights to assemble peacefully or petition the government.' i.e everyone has the right to live without oppression, so take that under your hat before you start persecuting those who you feel are of lesser value than yourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
