E-Male

Perhaps you could be bothered to look at how it is used within the literature in stead of creating a staw man. Do the hard work of actually reading about the subject. Stop assuming and start learning.

Is mere speculation about that which you have not bothered to read the best you can bring to this forum? And if you have explored the subject you are critiquing, let us have some details, some concrete examples, some insightful references to the subject you have so quickly mastered.

__________________
E-Male

USN_Squid

Ma'am? (Squid says as he raises his hand) I would like to discuss the apparent sweet irony of forwarding a serious discussion of video game violence online while using a self portrait in full Keffiyeh representing misogony and apocolyptic violence alongside a Barbie Sniper photo.

__________________

E-Male

Exceeleeent observation. Layers of the self wraped up in online representations and subversions, visual commentary on the war du jour of empire, gender violence and the violence of commodified representations of ideal femininity, virual warfare through transgressive image creation.

Sweet sweet irony indeed!

__________________
E-Male

E-Male

The research into VR, computers, and the self goes far beyond and far earlier than the relatively brief history of online gaming. I was not clear on that, sorry.

I do not ask for footnoted replies, or well documented dialogue. Well informed debate or honest intellectual inquiry is also enjoyable.

But when someone voices an opinion that is clearly based on a lack of knowledge about the subject, I may call them to task for it, as others do in these forums. Some of the assertions and arguments made in these threads bring to mind Harry G. Frankfurt's brief philosophical tract, On Bull****. His point about contemporary discourse exhibiting considerable bs (excuse the word, but here the context requires it) is relevant. Yes, the sandbox is like a bar, and together we shoot the sh**. I am cool with that. One may still call another on their gross ignorance of a subject or the utter foolishness of their reasoning.

Not at all. I completely understand the nature of the context here, and enjoy the josting as much as my fellow fork and spoon operators.

One thing I have yet to see fully explained. You and others have accussed me of dabbling in anti-Americanism. I fail to see how my discussion of the American social order has at anytime merited this diminuitive label. I sure everyone here recognizes, although not with equal chagrin, that some will take ANY criticism of America as anti-Americanism. For some, to say that America is not the best of all things constitutes anti-Americanism. Aside from that sort of absolutism, what has E-Male said that constitutes anti-Americanism?

Put it on the table. Show me were I have been guilty of anti-Americanism. This is the very subject of the book I am completing, so I would welcome the opportunity to discuss, perhaps in another thread as would be appropriate, the issue of anti-Americanism in TG's sandbox.

__________________
E-Male

ScratchMonkey

Re-quoting the paragraph in question (for my own short memory):

It's actually kind of interesting that you and I read that paragraph with completely opposite connotations. I read it as a celebration of the American libertarian tradition, a Good Thing. The alternative to me is heavy-handed authoritarianism and a desire for mind control, so I read the paragraph as a condemnation of Canada and Europe.

If you're in favor of a law-and-order society ("anything not forbidden is mandatory"), "lax attitude" is something to be avoided. If you prefer much more anarchy (as I do), this is something to be embraced.

__________________

xTYBALTx

Yeah that's how I read it too...

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

Hambergler

At seven years old I was taught "Give me liberty or give me death" in a public school. So individual rights trump collective welfare as well as personal welfare. It's not a perfect system, but in my opinion it is better then any other. Pointing out only the negative and most toxic aspects such as hate speech or "virtual child porn" (whatever that is), is only telling a small portion of the story and feels like a poisonous jab. I am personally ecstatic we tolerate all the imperfections that come with freedom. I don't expect anyone from another country to understand that.

You don't start off a conversation about American expression like that. Unless you are either anti-American, have no consideration in dealing with others or just trying stir some sh** up.

__________________

ScratchMonkey

Ah, thanks Hambergler. I glossed right over the "focus" on the "downsides" of free speech, having come to see them as a necessary consequence of an essential liberty.

But rather than see it as an attack, I view it as an opportunity for insight into the mindset of those without our background. It's this kind of subtle difference that has to be addressed before we can find common ground.

I believe someone from another country can come to understand our view, but I don't think we should assume that they, too, are born with it. (Enough natives don't really grasp it!)

__________________

Franko

But when you were seven years old, or for the two centuries prior to this, how did the rights of individuals coincide with technology? At first glance this thread does look like flame bait, but read through it again, carefully, I'm beginning to find the questions quite astounding about hyper-modern-reality and how we place ourselves in relation to it.

There was an interesting book that came out in the early 90's on this field called Simians, Cyborgs and Women by Donna Haraway. It's quite a trip, and asks some really interesting questions about this relationship. One of the things she talks about quite a bit is how so completly enmeshed humans are with machines in the late 20th and early 21st century. Though she finds the cyborg to be a liberating identity, she really couldn't have seen how messed up the online world would become... we are, after all, talking about the idea of virtual rape, which I still don't quite understand. Here is her take on the potential for computers and identity, masculinity and hegemony, the last line in particular raises significant questions about who we are when online and offline for that matter, again the question of autonomy and individuality becomes paramount:

Kerostasis

Considering neither you nor your opponents ever bother to actually cite any of this literature when making points, you seem to be exhibiting a fairly simple metric to determine how much of "the literature" a particular debator is familiar with: It is directly proportional to the extent to which they agree with you. Those who don't agree with you must not have learned anything important about the subject, or else they would obviously be agreeing with you already. Since you obviously agree with yourself perfectly, that logically makes you the best informed about the literature of whatever is under discussion.

Of course, since you are always correct by definition before starting these debates, I can only conclude that you start these things not in the hope of actually gaining any insight on the topics from us, but rather to conduct your own private experiment on how they are perceived by the ignorant masses, so that you can alternately laugh at us and grieve that we are so terribly misinformed. You certainly don't seem to seriously entertain the possibility of ever changing your own opinion based on anything we say.

If I'm not correctly interpreting your motivation here, I'd love to hear your take on it. Do you honestly hope to ever gain new insight from us on the actual topics you raise, or are you just looking for "social" insight into how other people perceive those topics?

__________________

E-Male

A good and fair question, A welcome break from all the demeaning comments above that resulted from my quoting, what, a leading American newspaper on American content regulation, which then lead to others scuring behind the old 'nativist' myth of 'you could not possibly understand becuase you are not from here.'

Yes, there has been some very interesting comments made in this thread. It is clear that all the name calling and nationalist posturering aside, others are also finding aspects of this thread of interest.

__________________
E-Male

Kerostasis

Thank you. Perhaps you wouldn't mind actually answering it then?


I know "it" is interesting to you. But you didn't explain what "it" was. What I am asking is, are you actually interested in learning more about --The Topic at Hand--, or are you finding it interesting to learn about --How Others Perceive the Topic at Hand--?

__________________

E-Male

__________________
E-Male

Kerostasis

Of everything I've seen you post in this forum, the only indication I have seen that you are ever not in complete agreement with yourself, or that you actually do maintain any doubt about your own beliefs, is that statement right there. Given my complete lack of evidence to the contrary, I would assert that my statement is not a wild overgeneralization, and reflects no more poorly on myself than it does on you.

Really though, I was pretty sure if you wanted to be offended by my post, you could have found a much better example than that. I am a little surprised by your choice of example.

I hope this does not mean that you have retracted your offer to answer the one question of mine that you agreed was a good and fair question above...I would be content for you to ignore the rest of my posts if you like, if only you will answer that one question.

__________________

E-Male

Again, a claim, an accusation, but what is the trend? Where is the thing you call anti-American in my words?

__________________
E-Male