Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 100
  1. #41
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus sonson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Tei View Post
    Theres nothing wrong with imagination and dreams or fantasies.

    Don't let anybody tell you different (feminist or religion, etc.. )
    So you don't think there should be any moral limitation on what you can imagine or fantasise about?

  2. #42
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    Attempting to justify it just plays into her "satire is no excuse" argument. I'm not suggesting that you or I are taking that position, but given that at least 2 writers on RPS lean in that direction, it seems odd. Perhaps tellingly, those two writers are well aware of the game and posted two articles on it.
    Which seems funny to me because the only reason the RPS writers at large are able to abide by Saints Row's juvenile and (and from what I can tell from reviews and pieces about it, having only played an hour of 3) misogynistic sense of humour is because it goes so off the rails that a sane person can only construe it as satire.

  3. #43
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,691
    Quote Originally Posted by sonson View Post
    So you don't think there should be any moral limitation on what you can imagine or fantasise about?
    Of course there shouldn't - to suggest otherwise is to suggest mind-control.

    What you do with those fantasies is different - any attempt to externalise them via art or whatever is completely different - but in your head you can do anything you like.

    In fact I'd say the most harmful thing, when it comes to your own fantasies, is to feel bad about having them - that is the path to a bad place.

  4. #44
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,525
    Quote Originally Posted by sonson View Post
    So you don't think there should be any moral limitation on what you can imagine or fantasise about?
    As trjp says, to suggest otherwise is to impose mind control or thought restriction. You can fantasise as much as you like (on FAN-TAHSEE EYE-LAND). Acting on it is an entirely different matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
    Which seems funny to me because the only reason the RPS writers at large are able to abide by Saints Row's juvenile and [...] misogynistic sense of humour is because it goes so off the rails that a sane person can only construe it as satire.
    I guess they don't have to accept all of Anita's arguments... and really, nobody claimed RPS had to be consistent.
    Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.
    Soldant's Law - A person will happily suspend their moral values if they can express moral outrage by doing so.

  5. #45
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
    Which seems funny to me because the only reason the RPS writers at large are able to abide by Saints Row's juvenile and (and from what I can tell from reviews and pieces about it, having only played an hour of 3) misogynistic sense of humour is because it goes so off the rails that a sane person can only construe it as satire.
    Why are you bringing juvenile into the argument?

    As for SR3, it's hardly misogynistic. Juvenile to the extreme, but not misogynistic.

  6. #46
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,199
    Do people really not get the difference? It seems pretty self evident to me.

  7. #47
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Hypernetic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,154
    You guys can't be serious.

  8. #48
    Network Hub Jambe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by trjp View Post
    Of course there shouldn't - to suggest otherwise is to suggest mind-control.
    If you think censure constitutes an attempt at mind control, then sure, but by that measure teaching children to share is mind-control, and making laws about fair-dealing is mind-control, and having any coercive teaching at all is mind-control. Oops, I coerced my eldest niece not to be greedy with her toys via snow cone incentives; I AM BIG BROTHER.

    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    As trjp says, to suggest otherwise is to impose mind control or thought restriction. You can fantasise as much as you like (on FAN-TAHSEE EYE-LAND). Acting on it is an entirely different matter.
    So... the supposition is either A) our mentation doesn't affect our outward behavior or B) our mentation isn't directly correlated enough to our outward behavior to warrant attempts at at changing our mentation. Yes? There may be more construals here (feel free to elaborate), and B is at least more nuanced, but I also think it's wrong. See:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning

    I'd wager classical conditioning factors in, too, e.g. conditioned emotional responses and suchlike.

    It's increasingly well-known that people are very poor judges of why they react the way they do even to super-simple events, e.g. witnessing an attractive person. This idea that we (i.e. our active, running sensoria) are great objective masters of what we do is just flat-out wrong; we're not Always In Control. Even the simplest fucking thing like whether one has a cold or hot drink at the time can markedly alter one's perception (despite one being absolutely unaware of the effect).

    People don't like to admit this because in extrospective day-to-day life people need the delusion that humans are Final Doers of Things so that blame and praise can be established; the idea that we're not even sure about why we ourselves do things summarily pulls the rug out from under this delusion. So the rug is hastily replaced and the knowledge that it was ever yanked away is brushed beneath it.

    The (unwitting) malleability of the human mind is very well-established!
    Last edited by Jambe; 12-08-2013 at 07:57 PM.
    Is not a leg.
    Frobnitz Ichor Liquor purveyors don't need compasses to tell which way the moon sounds.

  9. #49
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by Vicious View Post
    Why are you bringing juvenile into the argument?

    As for SR3, it's hardly misogynistic. Juvenile to the extreme, but not misogynistic.
    Is there not a mode where you kill hordes of hookers with an oversized dildo? Sounds like something out of an Anal C*nt song to me.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    975
    Quote Originally Posted by Jambe View Post
    If you think censure constitutes an attempt at mind control, then sure, but by that measure teaching children to share is mind-control, and making laws about fair-dealing is mind-control, and having any coercive teaching at all is mind-control. Oops, I coerced my eldest niece not to be greedy with her toys via snow cone incentives; I AM BIG BROTHER.

    So... the supposition is either A) our mentation doesn't affect our outward behavior or B) our mentation isn't directly correlated enough to our outward behavior to warrant attempts at at changing our mentation. Yes? There may be more construals here (feel free to elaborate), and B is at least more nuanced, but I also think it's wrong. See:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning

    I'd wager classical conditioning factors in, too, e.g. conditioned emotional responses and suchlike.

    It's increasingly well-known that people are very poor judges of why they react the way they do even to super-simple events, e.g. witnessing an attractive person. This idea that we (i.e. our active, running sensoria) are great objective masters of what we do is just flat-out wrong; we're not Always In Control. Even the simplest fucking thing like whether one has a cold or hot drink at the time can markedly alter one's perception (despite one being absolutely unaware of the effect).

    People don't like to admit this because in extrospective day-to-day life people need the delusion that humans are Final Doers of Things so that blame and praise can be established; the idea that we're not even sure about why we ourselves do things summarily pulls the rug out from under this delusion. So the rug is hastily replaced and the knowledge that it was ever yanked away is brushed beneath it.

    The (unwitting) malleability of the human mind is very well-established!
    I once compared teaching a young child not to lie to cult brainwashing. Literally the only difference is that cults have to resort to more physically coercive methods because their prospective members tend to be old enough to offer more effective resistance. They also don't enjoy widespread social support like parents. Ie, a child doesn't expect to be helped when complaining about their parents.

    Needless to say the father I was talking to shit a brick and quite colorfully insulted me. But what can you do? Truth hurts.

  11. #51
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Jambe View Post
    So... the supposition is either A) our mentation doesn't affect our outward behavior or B) our mentation isn't directly correlated enough to our outward behavior to warrant attempts at at changing our mentation. Yes? There may be more construals here (feel free to elaborate), and B is at least more nuanced, but I also think it's wrong.
    We'd be here all day to attempt to analyse that and we'd get nowhere, but the point I was raising is that generally speaking people can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and although we may fantasise about a number of things it doesn't logically follow that we will carry them out. Some people do, but most I'd wager don't. When I was in high school I'd stare out the door and fantasise about just bolting through it and off into the distance... but I never did.

    The flip side is, as you suggest, that some people won't place restraints and will make their dreams reality, sometimes with tragic consequences. The Columbine Shootings are one possible example where the two shooters committed themselves to their fantasy with devastating results. However there were other factors at play there which encouraged it and overrode any social/moral barriers that might have stopped them.

    This is somewhat off topic but to bring it back attempting to impose moral limits on what one can fantasise about is impossible until we develop thought control. All you can do is discourage the act, and if they never act on their fantasy or if it never interferes with 'normal' operation then no harm results. If there's no harm, I don't see why we should be on a moral crusade to tell people how to think.
    Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.
    Soldant's Law - A person will happily suspend their moral values if they can express moral outrage by doing so.

  12. #52
    Network Hub Jambe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by MoLAoS View Post
    I once compared teaching a young child not to lie to cult brainwashing. Literally the only difference is that cults have to resort to more physically coercive methods because their prospective members tend to be old enough to offer more effective resistance. They also don't enjoy widespread social support like parents. Ie, a child doesn't expect to be helped when complaining about their parents.

    Needless to say the father I was talking to shit a brick and quite colorfully insulted me. But what can you do? Truth hurts.
    Heh! Yeah, talking about the nature of learning also tends to get people's dander up wrt their morality and/or religion. Interestingly, similar learning processes continue into adulthood, but they're reduced (neurosteroid production declines with age, and thus so does neuroplasticity and the ability to learn & remember).

    Folk conceptions of mind are fascinating. The common western delusion is "I'm me, here behind my eyes, deliberately authoring my thoughts and actions throughout the day, and I have a good idea of how and why this authorship occurs."

    The truth is quite different! It's different enough that I can understand negative emotional reactions to it, especially from westerners enamored with individualistic idealizations of humanity. The father in question probably thought of teaching as gently guiding peoples' innate Doing Abilities rather than as deliberately coercing knowledge & attitudes into them. The popular Skinner quote is "give me a child and I'll shape them into anything". Lord of the Flies!

    A Skinnerian perspective on learning is one thing, but there are also the implications of entropy to consider. They have more or less the same effect on egocentric worldviews (that is to say, they unceremoniously yank the rug away). In the west it seems few people are particularly critical of the nature of self; we're supposedly macro-scale fundamental particles all Doing Our Own Thing. We're objective about ourselves! We're the best judges of our own behavior! We magically decrease entropy! We will our own wills! Our cognition and perception are consistent over time! etc.

    Tangentially, having chatted with all manner of people about these things, western folk seem quite alright with the idea of causality as long as it's not related to their minds or core beliefs. They even intuitively understand it in many instances (e.g. vis-a-vis most of the peculiarities of their interpersonal relationships). Curiously, the same kind of egocentric touchy-spot is exhibited by many irreligious people, usually the ones obsessed with novelty, ownership and the "consumer lifestyle" more broadly. But I've harped on that enough, I think.




    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    We'd be here all day to attempt to analyse that and we'd get nowhere, but the point I was raising is that generally speaking people can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and although we may fantasise about a number of things it doesn't logically follow that we will carry them out. Some people do, but most I'd wager don't. When I was in high school I'd stare out the door and fantasise about just bolting through it and off into the distance... but I never did.
    We're not talking about skipping school, we're talking about people being sexist asshats by the boatload. Replace your scenario with one actually under contention:

    "When I was in high school I'd stare at Kacyn all day and fantasize about us engaged in the animalistic porn-fucking I watched. But we never did it."

    Consider operant conditioning. The kid fantasizes about it all day and then jerks off to it. Fantasy and release, fantasy and release. What would you predict given this scenario? I'd predict a growing disconnect between reality and fantasy manifested as a conception of women as pleasure mediums.

    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    If there's no harm, I don't see why we should be on a moral crusade to tell people how to think.
    How are you in a position to say there's no harm? It's not axiomatically obvious. I don't know whether there is or isn't harm, but science of mind and behaviorism seem to indicate that there could be.

    I take issue with your "moral crusade" language. Wishing for trash to be deemed trash and for it to constitute a smaller portion of extant media only constitutes a "moral crusade" if one has a pathological attachment to the status quo (which is kinda the heart of social conservatism).
    Last edited by Jambe; 13-08-2013 at 03:37 AM.
    Is not a leg.
    Frobnitz Ichor Liquor purveyors don't need compasses to tell which way the moon sounds.

  13. #53
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Hypernetic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Jambe View Post
    Heh! Yeah, talking about the nature of learning also tends to get people's dander up wrt their morality and/or religion. Interestingly, similar learning processes continue into adulthood, but they're reduced (neurosteroid production declines with age, and thus so does neuroplasticity and the ability to learn & remember).

    Folk conceptions of mind are fascinating. The common western delusion is "I'm me, here behind my eyes, deliberately authoring my thoughts and actions throughout the day, and I have a good idea of how and why this authorship occurs."

    The truth is quite different! It's different enough that I can understand negative emotional reactions to it, especially from westerners enamored with individualistic idealizations of humanity. The father in question probably thought of teaching as gently guiding peoples' innate Doing Abilities rather than as deliberately coercing knowledge & attitudes into them. The popular Skinner quote is "give me a child and I'll shape them into anything". Lord of the Flies!

    A Skinnerian perspective on learning is one thing, but there are also the implications of entropy to consider. They have more or less the same effect on egocentric worldviews (that is to say, they unceremoniously yank the rug away). In the west it seems few people are particularly critical of the nature of self; we're supposedly macro-scale fundamental particles all Doing Our Own Thing. We're objective about ourselves! We're the best judges of our own behavior! We magically decrease entropy! We will our own wills! Our cognition and perception are consistent over time! etc.

    Tangentially, having chatted with all manner of people about these things, western folk seem quite alright with the idea of causality as long as it's not related to their minds or core beliefs. They even intuitively understand it in many instances (e.g. vis-a-vis most of the peculiarities of their interpersonal relationships). Curiously, the same kind of egocentric touchy-spot is exhibited by many irreligious people, usually the ones obsessed with novelty, ownership and the "consumer lifestyle" more broadly. But I've harped on that enough, I think.






    We're not talking about skipping school, we're talking about people being sexist asshats by the boatload. Replace your scenario with one actually under contention:

    "When I was in high school I'd stare at Kacyn all day and fantasize about us engaged in the animalistic porn-fucking I watched. But we never did it."

    Consider operant conditioning. The kid fantasizes about it all day and then jerks off to it. Fantasy and release, fantasy and release. What would you predict given this scenario? I'd predict a growing disconnect between reality and fantasy manifested as a conception of women as pleasure mediums.



    How are you in a position to say there's no harm? It's not axiomatically obvious. I don't know whether there is or isn't harm, but science of mind and behaviorism seem to indicate that there could be.

    I take issue with your "moral crusade" language. Wishing for trash to be deemed trash and for it to constitute a smaller portion of extant media only constitutes a "moral crusade" if one has a pathological attachment to the status quo (which is kinda the heart of social conservatism).
    You really need to get laid, my friend.

  14. #54
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Jambe View Post
    Consider operant conditioning. The kid fantasizes about it all day and then jerks off to it. Fantasy and release, fantasy and release. What would you predict given this scenario? I'd predict a growing disconnect between reality and fantasy manifested as a conception of women as pleasure mediums.
    I'd argue that's a pretty big leap given that plenty of males view pornography (which is frequently disconnected from reality) or have sexual fantasies about other people and yet still manage to form effective relationships. Despite your wording you seem to be implying that it's a foregone conclusion that the fantasy will manifest as reality given time and thus it needs to be stamped out. And I wasn't referred to just skipping school, you can apply it to whatever you like. There's probably plenty of kids who dreamed of shooting up their school for various factors, and yet very, very few ever do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jambe View Post
    How are you in a position to say there's no harm? It's not axiomatically obvious. I don't know whether there is or isn't harm, but science of mind and behaviorism seem to indicate that there could be.
    How are you in any position to say that there is harm? You've just admitted that you can't say whether there is or isn't. I'd rather not be in the business of playing thought police just because there maybe might be a slim chance that they'll turn it into reality. That leads down a very dark path. We might as well just start banning things that lead to "prohibited" thought, and then we're going to run into an argument about what is bad and what is good. There's no winning that argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jambe View Post
    I take issue with your "moral crusade" language.
    You can label it trash as much as you like, but trying to dictate what people should or should not think about just because you presume there's the potential for harm is doing exactly that. By all means condemn sexist media - I sure do if I see a valid reason to do so. But to suggest that we should control people's fantasies? Really? You're going to be hard pressed to find a way to even verify what people fantasise about until they actually enact it, and that's going to be a pretty flawed argument to make. The bulk of people fantasise about all sorts of things that never come to fruition, only a handful ever take it to the next step... and even then there are plenty of other external factors to consider.

    Again I'd bring up the Columbine Massacre (since it's fairly well documented although the shooters are in some ways still a bit of an enigma) where there was a clear fantasy which they did execute, but it occurred within the context of a number of other issues that 'pushed' them towards it (from their way of thinking, at least so far as anyone can determine). Plenty of other kids won't do it though.
    Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.
    Soldant's Law - A person will happily suspend their moral values if they can express moral outrage by doing so.

  15. #55
    Network Hub Jambe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    I'd argue that's a pretty big leap given that plenty of males view pornography (which is frequently disconnected from reality) or have sexual fantasies about other people and yet still manage to form effective relationships. Despite your wording you seem to be implying that it's a foregone conclusion that the fantasy will manifest as reality given time and thus it needs to be stamped out. And I wasn't referred to just skipping school, you can apply it to whatever you like. There's probably plenty of kids who dreamed of shooting up their school for various factors, and yet very, very few ever do.
    Why you surmise that I think I have clear knowledge about the link between fantasy and outward behavior is beyond me, ditto the idea that I think something needs "stamped out". I said the opposite not but a few posts above.

    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    How are you in any position to say that there is harm? You've just admitted that you can't say whether there is or isn't. I'd rather not be in the business of playing thought police just because there maybe might be a slim chance that they'll turn it into reality. That leads down a very dark path. We might as well just start banning things that lead to "prohibited" thought, and then we're going to run into an argument about what is bad and what is good. There's no winning that argument.
    Neither of us knows how directly fantasy affects behavior, therefore we should carry on as if there's no problem? Is that what you're saying? If so, I disagree. How do you get from "let's call trash trash and promote better stuff" to "Jambe advocates thought policing"? Furthermore, are you arguing that "thought policing" is an innate, absolute, or universal wrong? More on that question to follow immediately below:

    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    You can label it trash as much as you like, but trying to dictate what people should or should not think about just because you presume there's the potential for harm is doing exactly that. By all means condemn sexist media - I sure do if I see a valid reason to do so. But to suggest that we should control people's fantasies? Really? You're going to be hard pressed to find a way to even verify what people fantasise about until they actually enact it, and that's going to be a pretty flawed argument to make. The bulk of people fantasise about all sorts of things that never come to fruition, only a handful ever take it to the next step... and even then there are plenty of other external factors to consider.

    Again I'd bring up the Columbine Massacre (since it's fairly well documented although the shooters are in some ways still a bit of an enigma) where there was a clear fantasy which they did execute, but it occurred within the context of a number of other issues that 'pushed' them towards it (from their way of thinking, at least so far as anyone can determine). Plenty of other kids won't do it though.
    "Thanks for telling me, honey, but it's really quite alright. You just keep imagining that you punched your new playmate in the face because they accidentally broke your favorite toy. That's proper fantasy. Good girl."

    Does that sound right to you? Would that be proper parenting? If the parent took the opposite tack and explained & discouraged little Aafje's violent fantasy, would it be better parenting? Why so? What is the underlying assumption there? Is it that the child's fantasies would have some bearing on her personality, her actual intent, and/or her possible future behavior? If not, why bother discouraging the fantasy, or indeed, why not encourage it?

    Furthermore, if the parents discouraged Aafje's violent notions about her peers, would that constitute "controlling her fantasies"? I'd say it would. WEE-WOO WEE-WOO HERE COME THE THOUGHT POLICE! Maybe they should just let the kid fantasize about whatever she wants so those sirens never spin up?

    The problem here is that it's not clear how fantasy influences outward behavior and thus there's wiggle room for the sort of moralistic squabble we're having. I think we'd both agree that a pressing concern is enabling more research. In the meantime, though, I'd just say it's a good idea to censure people who display earnest fantasies about possible real future states which are egregiously dangerous and/or inequitable (e.g. "I'd like to kill some people" or "I need to find myself a good bitch"). It's also probably worthwhile to decry media which blatantly promote or idealize such things with no subtlety, awareness or context.
    Is not a leg.
    Frobnitz Ichor Liquor purveyors don't need compasses to tell which way the moon sounds.

  16. #56
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Jambe View Post
    How do you get from "let's call trash trash and promote better stuff" to "Jambe advocates thought policing"?
    Well you are asking for fantasy to be regulated, aren't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jambe View Post
    Does that sound right to you? Would that be proper parenting? If the parent took the opposite tack and explained & discouraged little Aafje's violent fantasy, would it be better parenting? Why so?
    What ultimately matters is if she acts on the fantasy - I can discourage the act but I can't control thought. Telling people "You shouldn't think like that" is an empty suggestion. There are plenty of people in this world who I'd love to toss through a meat grinder, but the grand total number of people I've done that to rests at zero. Why? Because I understand the difference between fantasy and reality - I regulate my activity but that doesn't stop me day-dreaming about something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jambe View Post
    In the meantime, though, I'd just say it's a good idea to censure people who display earnest fantasies about possible real future states which are egregiously dangerous and/or inequitable (e.g. "I'd like to kill some people" or "I need to find myself a good bitch").
    How many people say or think to themselves "I'd like to kill Nalano" (I don't, I want more Nalano!) or something to that effect? And then how many people actually do it? The problem with "earnest fantasies" is that it then stops becoming a fantasy and starts becoming a plan. That's different from the idle daydream that the majority of people entertain when they fantasise. The kid in school who gets bullied and daydreams about shooting the place up is a world apart from Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold who went ahead and made actual plans to turn it into a reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jambe View Post
    It's also probably worthwhile to decry media which blatantly promote or idealize such things with no subtlety, awareness or context.
    That part is true at least.
    Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.
    Soldant's Law - A person will happily suspend their moral values if they can express moral outrage by doing so.

  17. #57
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Fumarole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,908
    Thought crime!

    The Medallion of the Imperial Psychopath, a Napoleon: Total War AAR
    For the Emperor!, a Total War: Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai AAR

  18. #58
    Network Hub Jambe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by Hypernetic View Post
    You really need to get laid, my friend.
    Sorry I missed this cereal contribution, snookums. Tell me: wotsit like?

    I agree, though; sex would be great. I've killed so many kittens! I'm Felis stalinae.

    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    Well you are asking for fantasy to be regulated, aren't you?
    If discouragement entails "bringing order, method, or uniformity to" fantasy (regulation 2), yes. If you think it entails codified laws, though (1), no.

    We're playing a semantic game now which I already highlighted. You avoided the crux-question so I'll put it again: does my hypothetical parent's discouragement of Aafje's violent fantasies constitute "regulating her fantasies"? If yes and you agree with me that such discouragement should occur, there's a kink in your reasoning. If yes and you disagree that such discouragement should happen, I think you're silly. If no then we have massive language incompatibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    What ultimately matters is if she acts on the fantasy - I can discourage the act but I can't control thought. Telling people "You shouldn't think like that" is an empty suggestion. There are plenty of people in this world who I'd love to toss through a meat grinder, but the grand total number of people I've done that to rests at zero. Why? Because I understand the difference between fantasy and reality - I regulate my activity but that doesn't stop me day-dreaming about something.
    The idea that our fantasies should be Off Limits because they're mostly irrelevant daydreams seems logically incorrect given that there are good types of fantasies which we regularly and often uncritically promote (e.g. someday attaining an egalitarian civilization, rising up the social ranks, being financially and/or critically successful, etc). On one hand wanting to discourage bad fantasy is wrong, but otoh wanting to encourage good fantasy is right? That contrapositive form is fucked up (if "yes to good" is true then "no to bad" should also be true) and you're probably aware of this problem because you've explicitly mentioned the inherent "good vs bad" moral nature of the topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    How many people say or think to themselves "I'd like to kill Nalano" (I don't, I want more Nalano!) or something to that effect? And then how many people actually do it? The problem with "earnest fantasies" is that it then stops becoming a fantasy and starts becoming a plan. That's different from the idle daydream that the majority of people entertain when they fantasise. The kid in school who gets bullied and daydreams about shooting the place up is a world apart from Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold who went ahead and made actual plans to turn it into a reality.
    I think this is a fair summary of your views, but dispute me if I'm wrong: you don't think fantastic mentation about e.g. sex and violence correlates strongly enough with outward behavior for us to try shaping such mentation. Right?

    I disagree pretty fundamentally because bad actualized fantasies begin as supposedly-innocuous fantasies, right? Just to (maybe) find some common ground here: if you believe intervening Olympians constitute a fantasy, then how do you square your current position with ubiquitous evidence that mythological belief systems influence how people behave? Do you think we should want to alter how people fantasize about their lives and morals if those fantasies correlate with harmful behaviors? Is Biblical Inerrancy a fantasy which we should shrug off and ignore because "it's just a daydream"? If so, then we'll be forever stuck treating symptoms instead of diseases.

    Extant literature indicates that fantasy influences outward behavior (just search for functional analysis + fantasy and you'll surely find stuff about e.g. orgasmic reconditioning). The fact that findings in group studies are correlative rather than causative means you're at least right that the link between fantasy and outward behavior is part of a larger system, but that's (forgive me for being blunt) super-obvious. The fact that fantasy is a segment of broader puzzle doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously.
    Is not a leg.
    Frobnitz Ichor Liquor purveyors don't need compasses to tell which way the moon sounds.

  19. #59
    Network Hub Jambe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    310
    Well, turtles. I have a touch more downtime and this was clawing at my brain. I'll try to approach this a bit differently.

    The planning vs fantasizing angle you brought up seems as semantically problematic as regulation vs dis/encouragement and it points at what I think is a shared underlying problem. That problem is this: whether we should or should not regulate fantasy is irrelevant because we innately regulate it; we do so merely by communicating with each other. I SHARED A TUMBLE-DRIER WITH A SHOGGOTH YESTERDAY AND CAME TO UNDERSTAND THE INHERENT HORROR AND POINTLESSNESS OF EXISTENCE! See, I just inserted a fantasy into your mind; I just momentarily regulated your capacity to fantasize. Repeat that kind of fantasy-exchange frequently enough and get some camaraderie between the participants and you end up with an actual real-life Cthulhu cult. Y'follow?

    Inducing crazy is really that simple (and so ftm is inducing reasonableness). Groupthink is a real phenomenon, and futhermore people are ok at reasoning about things which happen soon and/or over short timespans and wtf-terrible at reasoning about the future and long-timespan phenomena. People really like how Jesus makes them feel, but they don't understand (or reject) the idea that the Jesus-myth is an evolved social dynamic. The critical thing I'm suggesting is that this long-scale blindness surely applies to how we conceive of our own fantasies, too. I mean, how could it not? I seriously doubt our shortcomings magically disappear just because we don't like or understand them.

    The relevant issue, then, is how we should regulate fantasy – the who, what, where, when, and why of it. As I've said, I think it's best done with censure unless a person seems outwardly unstable/troubled. I don't mean to offend, but anecdotally your position seems rooted in standard western egotism ("it's my mind, dammit, and you stay the hell out of it!").

    In reality your mind ain't so separate from everything (and everyone) around you. Your fantasies aren't just "yours" – they came from experience, i.e. from outside of you. First you encountered a door, then you grokked how it operated, then you learned how to use language to describe it, and then later you could linguistically fantasize about operating it (perhaps even in relation to other things you'd learned). That's how all fantasy and indeed how all thought works – it's iterative. It tracks along with the arrow of time; it evolves.
    Is not a leg.
    Frobnitz Ichor Liquor purveyors don't need compasses to tell which way the moon sounds.

  20. #60
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Jambe View Post
    The relevant issue, then, is how we should regulate fantasy – the who, what, where, when, and why of it. As I've said, I think it's best done with censure unless a person seems outwardly unstable/troubled. I don't mean to offend, but anecdotally your position seems rooted in standard western egotism ("it's my mind, dammit, and you stay the hell out of it!").
    You operate in a social level where the product is society, and the output is a good society, and the means are vomiting and soul destroying.

    This is the elements of every anti-utopia that has somebody imagined and all that has been implemented, like communism.

    Its wrong because is the wrong level.

    Don't be so quick to disregard the human being, and classify it as "western egotism". Its possible to be proud of the human being. To want to be hone. To be free. To live a happy and creative life. To have a personal objectives that are good for the person and the society. And all in a environment that don't try to negotiate with the human rights.

    maybe related
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_(novel)
    Last edited by Tei; 14-08-2013 at 12:34 AM.
    Abandoned PC gaming for good. Now rest in a better place. psn:Teikman

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •