Game News Video Games And Male Gaze

[Clockwork Knight]

Hiver Age: What The Fuckening.

 

[Sukeban Cho]

I hate to make a louzy argument of authority, but I guess plenty of eminent Codexers do have a point about the decline in production values, work ethics and priorities when it comes to the process of game development and resulting products.

Production values have been going up, which is one of the reasons behind the problems, or changes, games are facing.

And if we are going to make arguments from shit, much more people prefer the new games to the old games. We can argue around why we should listen to one or the other groups for hours and be at the exact same starting point.

For the sake of clarity, this is not going to be a clear high-brow vs low-brow example. Let's consider a mechanism instead: segmenting games into DLCs. In the long run it is hardly a positive thing which leads to various forms of abuse and decrease in quality.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

For the example to make sense first you have to show in which way is, say, the focus on cheap sexuality akin to DLC, other than in you don't liking either.

Should we accept what we find clearly wrong or harmful, in any other facet of gaming?

Define "clearly wrong or harmful."

You don't like the direction things are going, okay. That's fine. That doesn't make the direction clearly wrong and harmful, that just make it not Mrowak compliant.

When it concern individuals I don't know, I do not care. Freeedom is for all. When it affects whole groups of people, I do. Just because games - as products of culture - influence worldviews and opinions of societies.

Games, as a product of culture, are nothing but a vessel for the dominant tendencies they are expressing. They do not influence worldviews and opinions as much as reflect them, and thus the problem, if there's a problem to begin with, is in the society that spawns the product and creates the market for it. The product is doing nothing but satisfying an already present necesity. The same tendencies you are criticizing in videogames are present in every other medium out there.

Are you going to change society by boicotting a videogame?

Ahh... but then one could argue that discussing anything which goes beyond objective facts (such as interpretation of those facts and criticism of those interpretations) is pointless because these time could be better spent at becoming a better individual (screw the fact that discussing subjective opinions is one method of getting clearer view on all matters and thus turning into a better person).

I could argue discussing anything that goes beyond objective facts is pointless because interpretation is always ilussion until it has been objectively demonstrated, moment in which it stops being interpretation (and thus interpretation is ALWAYS ilussion).

That would not be very sporty of me, though.

Moreover, even this statement was my subjective opinion, which may be less valid than someone else's (perhaps) more objective view (how can I know that his opinion is subjective/objective without eliciting it first, by stating my own stance?), so it's best to keep quiet and not to say anything that could slight someone in some way. It's a vicious circle, really.

And as I argued in another debate we both were involved elsewhere objective reality is self evident, everything beyond that is interpretation. The mere fact you have to argue something implies an interpretation, as objective truths can't be denied.

What are we talking about, again?

Needless to say I don't agree with that. :/ Criticism of worldviews, the way people live is exactly the thing that drives us on - for better or for worse. We judge by nature - whether it is the surface ('hmm, nice... chest!'), someone's actions or - yes - opinions. We seek conflict and voice our reservations about this or that. The sooner you identify and talk about the (maybe completely superficial or even imaginary) problem the sooner you will solve it. I find this sort of thing far better than pretending the issue doesn't exist and subconsciously hating something. Even if I am totally wrong, what's the worst that could happen? That I will learn the rationale behind someone's else's standpoint and maybe come round to accept them (after grumbling under my nose for some time)? Become a better person? Note, that all of this is perfectly subjective (or is it?).

Or you can simply not give a fuck about the subjective interpretations of others, given by default they are as illusory as yours. Truth is that which cannot be denied: Gravity will slam you against the floor if you jump from the roof. Everything else is delusion.

That's the Kinzo way.

Spoiler

Now we start writing in colors and the circle is complete.

Of course, part of the problem here is that if something can be characterised by a derogatory feature it is good enough reason to criticise it. People take such criticism personally, interpreting it as attacks on their ego, which is one short step away from criticizing individuals and their worldviews. This - as I said - it is not bad IMO. It's natural.

The problem is: If both interpretations are delusional, what is the point to discuss shit to begin with? And the very fact they need to be argued imply they aren't an evident truth, and thus subjective in some measure.

What I am trying to say is, why care? People finds sexuality satisfying, and that's a self evident fact. All judgements we elucidate from that are interpretations, and thus delusions the moment you believe in them. If they want to masturbate furiously at the thought of murderous nuns with tight outfits, good for them.

And again, games aren't the cause. They are just the reflection of what society has become, and thus what we have become and are becoming. And no matter how much you curse and insult your cough the lung cancer is still there and not giving a fuck.

Yes, but this statement is a little bit arbitrary as well. That one finds depth in e.g. Harlequine novels doesn't really mean there is any. If the same person found e.g. Bulhakov's "Master and Margarita" a boring read about nonsense, it doesn't mean it lacks depth.

There is no depth in anything. Depth, and meaning, and message are, again, interpretations of a work. And the very moment you had to make an interpretation you are outside the realm of reality and inside the realm of, like, Mrowak's head, which is self evident in the fact that you give thirty persons the same work and they will come out with thirty different interpretations of everything that wasn't obvious and spelt for them. Then they discuss shit and reach a consensus, but that's still not real, it's just a shared delussion.

Which is exactly what he was saying: Depth and meaning are a projection of your own search for them, they do not exist outside of your mind. Which does not mean what you thus discover isn't valuable to you.

Jesus, I have become the poster girl for postmodernist witches.

Hey, hey - you started it. Your first statement was equally arbitrary as this one or mine.

If I don't add at least one airheaded and superficial statement per post people will begin taking me seriously, and we don't want that.

Besides, I agreed beauty does make things better on its own. When you see a well-built, fashionable handsome guy / beautiful girl one of the things your brain registers is that because they look so well, they are probably self-reliant, classy, do sports (which proves their unyelding willpower) and you generally get positive vibes. Contrast that with your typical basement dweller, who can only scare the people off. Forgive me being trite, but looks can really speak about character... but no one guarantees they speak the (whole) truth. Limiting yourself to the surface (especially in the first case) of things is kinda self-defeating. We've both read our share of fairly lore, we know how glamour works, and we know how well it applies to real things ("don't judge the book by its cover" and all that).

Which fits strangely well with what we are discussing, as the theory behind glamour magic is that it messes not with reality but with the recipient's head: A pooka gives you a gold coin that later turns to be a stone, yet in reality it was always a stone. He just told you to interpretate it as a gold coin for a cheap laugh.

How much easier can you tell yourself something is obviously true when there is nothing more than a stone, then?

And then, if there's only a stone, why not create around it the delusion that you enjoy and will make you happy instead of the one that will turn you into a grumpy old man no one likes?

Having read the article once again, I realised why people here acted all allergic to it, despite its rather mild and fair-minded content. It's the title - "the Male Gaze". It implies that just having a look at a girl/guy and thinking "nice ass" is something worth of disdain and scorn. I can hardly agree to that, as to me it's a perfectly normal reaction. Deniying this would be pretty masochistic. However taking advantage of this mechanism in order to market your product is just low... as are all sociotechniques created to control your consumer base better.

But we aren't seeing eye to eye. Say, there's this upcoming Korean MMO by the name of Blade & Soul, one of the main attractions being the guy behind the character and visual design is none other than Hyung-Tae Kim, and I believe his wife, Jiyun Chae, is also on the project.

Both of them are known, among other things, for their incredibly hot guys and girls. You could say they are taking advantage of the mechanism in order to market their product, as the hotness of Hyung-Tae Kim characters is a selling point for the game. But that's the problem right there: For many of the players, Hyung-Tae Kim's design and style is the product, and the game around it is just a bonus.

Many of those who go and buy shit because "sex sells" are buying the sexuality, so no one's taking advantage of them as long as the T&A they were promised is there, no matter how much or how few they were promised.

 

[Icewater]

ITT we find out that the entire Codex is just two guys trolling each other with a ton of alts.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Droco is Drog, so that makes all the other alts mentioned Drog-alts as well, which fits his profile to a tee.

 

[Mozgoëbstvo]

Why don't you ask for a "pink quota" for work in mines, steel mills and such? No? Only for cushy jobs?

Women have been allowed to work in mines and steel mills for at least a century or two already. Women also make a large part of manufacturing workforce, overall. Read up, bro, before going on a Crusade.

They have also been allowed to be politicians for a long time. But they ask for 50% obligatory female presence in administrative jobs.
Plus, just look at the statistics for workplace deaths in heavy, dangerous jobs in the developed west. It passes 90% males pretty much everywhere.

 

[Mozgoëbstvo]

You, sir (?), are an idiot. I could try to make the point that videogames, as many other forms or entertainment, reflects social issues, but last time I check you'd need and IQ above chimp levels to understand.

Well, thank you for making me a better person.

 

[GarfunkeL]

But they ask for 50% obligatory female presence in administrative jobs.[Citation needed]
Plus, just look at the statistics for workplace deaths in heavy, dangerous jobs in the developed west. It passes 90% males pretty much everywhere.[Citation needed]

Not to mention that workplace deaths are way, way down from what they used to be.

 

[Mozgoëbstvo]

But they ask for 50% obligatory female presence in administrative jobs.[Citation needed]
Plus, just look at the statistics for workplace deaths in heavy, dangerous jobs in the developed west. It passes 90% males pretty much everywhere.[Citation needed]

Not to mention that workplace deaths are way, way down from what they used to be.

That's true. But what I meant, among those few deaths, the vast majority is still male. Ergo: I make the logical assumption that, in the civilized west,
the greatest danger (even if it's small in an absolute number, thankfully) still falls on the shoulders of men.

 

[Mozgoëbstvo]

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2010/04/creating-‘equal-occupational-fatality-day’-occurs-next-in-2021/

And this, since you asked for a source. Go on, confronts sources for Europe, and similar numbers will pop up all over the place.

 

[Angthoron]

But bro, it's widely known that most of those deaths come from males trying to stick their manhoods into heavy machinery. Women have no manhood to stick into things, and thus their mortality rates are lower.

 

[Oriebam]

But bro, it's widely known that most of those deaths come from males trying to stick their manhoods into heavy machinery. Women have no manhood to stick into things, and thus their mortality rates are lower.

But men have no fault

 

[RK47]

They do menstruate. And lose blood.
If excessive discharge of blood continues over time, their blood pressure might drop too low, leading to loss of consciousness. It happened to my colleague. The week after hospital stay, she decided to tender her resignation.

 

[Angthoron]

But bro, it's widely known that most of those deaths come from males trying to stick their manhoods into heavy machinery. Women have no manhood to stick into things, and thus their mortality rates are lower.

But men have no fault

Indeed, it is no fault to attempt to mate with orifices of steel. The risk is great, but the reward...

 

[Mozgoëbstvo]

So, bros, you want to have a serious discussion? Because trolling and joking is absolutely fine by me, but if I see that there's no will to discuss things at length and seriously, well, I'll piss off and do other stuff.
Heh, you know what? I'll set a number and a time limit. If in the span of five hours at least five codexers don't manifest the explicit intention of discussing this shit - which is quite important and interesting, in my opinion - seriously and thoroughly, I'll quit this particular thread forever, because my planet needs me.

 

[Oriebam]

you're blatantly copping out with those requirements

 

[Angthoron]

So, bros, you want to have a serious discussion? Because trolling and joking is absolutely fine by me, but if I see that there's no will to discuss things at length and seriously, well, I'll piss off and do other stuff.
Heh, you know what? I'll set a number and a time limit. If in the span of five hours at least five codexers don't manifest the explicit intention of discussing this shit - which is quite important and interesting, in my opinion - seriously and thoroughly, I'll quit this particular thread forever, because my planet needs me.

I see no point, personally. It's a giant fucking trend all over the Internet right now, anywhere you go, there's someone SERIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT WOMAN RIGHTS. The raid group I raid with in WoW has a thread about it, for crying out loud.

To me it's pretty simple, in my Glorious Motherland I was brought up with the idea that everyone's equal so I hate everyone equally and without reservation. Someone else grew up with a different set of ideals. Deal with it. Muslims have access to Internet. Japanese do. Fuck, even Nigerians in the net these days aren't all royalties. They all have different concepts regarding social norms, so what now, we're supposed to bomb them until women wear jeans and represent 50% of the parliament?

So men have a gaze, holy fucking shit, how lovely. Some women complain men treat them like sex objects and sacks of meat. Some women complain that men treat them as creatures without any gender. Some women just go to work, build a career, own million-dollar corporations they built with their own hands (our company CEO is one of these) and don't give a fuck because they don't need to prove anything - their credentials speak for themselves.

Then comes a bunch of people that hasn't accomplished a shit, and starts slinging accusations from one side of the fence and to the other. Then the PC Police rolls in and shits on one side on the fence and gives the other side a candy. Then the side with shit has to be mad quietly.

This shit also does a great job at marginalizing the men, because by saying, "The Male Gaze" one presumes that all males gaze similarly. Well shit news, they don't. Culture, upbringing, ethnicity, etfuckingc make one male as different from the other just as much as same factors make one female different from the next.

Fuck Political Correctness and its attempt to lump some groups (males, haters) into homogenous piles while trying to pick other groups (females, minorities) into a million special cupcakes.


Oh shit, did I just DISCUSS? Well fuck.

 

[Mozgoëbstvo]

So, bros, you want to have a serious discussion? Because trolling and joking is absolutely fine by me, but if I see that there's no will to discuss things at length and seriously, well, I'll piss off and do other stuff.
Heh, you know what? I'll set a number and a time limit. If in the span of five hours at least five codexers don't manifest the explicit intention of discussing this shit - which is quite important and interesting, in my opinion - seriously and thoroughly, I'll quit this particular thread forever, because my planet needs me.

I see no point, personally. It's a giant fucking trend all over the Internet right now, anywhere you go, there's someone SERIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT WOMAN RIGHTS. The raid group I raid with in WoW has a thread about it, for crying out loud.

To me it's pretty simple, in my Glorious Motherland I was brought up with the idea that everyone's equal so I hate everyone equally and without reservation. Someone else grew up with a different set of ideals. Deal with it. Muslims have access to Internet. Japanese do. Fuck, even Nigerians in the net these days aren't all royalties. They all have different concepts regarding social norms, so what now, we're supposed to bomb them until women wear jeans and represent 50% of the parliament?

So men have a gaze, holy fucking shit, how lovely. Some women complain men treat them like sex objects and sacks of meat. Some women complain that men treat them as creatures without any gender. Some women just go to work, build a career, own million-dollar corporations they built with their own hands (our company CEO is one of these) and don't give a fuck because they don't need to prove anything - their credentials speak for themselves.

Then comes a bunch of people that hasn't accomplished a shit, and starts slinging accusations from one side of the fence and to the other. Then the PC Police rolls in and shits on one side on the fence and gives the other side a candy. Then the side with shit has to be mad quietly.

This shit also does a great job at marginalizing the men, because by saying, "The Male Gaze" one presumes that all males gaze similarly. Well shit news, they don't. Culture, upbringing, ethnicity, etfuckingc make one male as different from the other just as much as same factors make one female different from the next.

Fuck Political Correctness and its attempt to lump some groups (males, haters) into homogenous piles while trying to pick other groups (females, minorities) into a million special cupcakes.


Oh shit, did I just DISCUSS? Well fuck.

Well, see? I think your post was quite good. I mean, I know there's all sorts of people who just accept certain things, but I think there are a lot of intelligent, good people that just have been bombarded with certain misconceptions and they believe them despite themselves. I think it's worth discussing them for the sake of building an understanding with those people who have the means to understand. I know full well a lot of them, sadly, are just going to bark.

The fact that pretty much the "truth" that, for example, Napoleon was short, is ingrained deeply into the public doesn't mean it can't be dispelled.

But yeah, I hear you when you talk about the pointlessness. It's very tempting to say "fuck it" and move along.

 

[JamesBond]

So, bros, you want to have a serious discussion? Because trolling and joking is absolutely fine by me, but if I see that there's no will to discuss things at length and seriously, well, I'll piss off and do other stuff.
Heh, you know what? I'll set a number and a time limit. If in the span of five hours at least five codexers don't manifest the explicit intention of discussing this shit - which is quite important and interesting, in my opinion - seriously and thoroughly, I'll quit this particular thread forever, because my planet needs me.

I see no point, personally. It's a giant fucking trend all over the Internet right now, anywhere you go, there's someone SERIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT WOMAN RIGHTS. The raid group I raid with in WoW has a thread about it, for crying out loud.

To me it's pretty simple, in my Glorious Motherland I was brought up with the idea that everyone's equal so I hate everyone equally and without reservation. Someone else grew up with a different set of ideals. Deal with it. Muslims have access to Internet. Japanese do. Fuck, even Nigerians in the net these days aren't all royalties. They all have different concepts regarding social norms, so what now, we're supposed to bomb them until women wear jeans and represent 50% of the parliament?

So men have a gaze, holy fucking shit, how lovely. Some women complain men treat them like sex objects and sacks of meat. Some women complain that men treat them as creatures without any gender. Some women just go to work, build a career, own million-dollar corporations they built with their own hands (our company CEO is one of these) and don't give a fuck because they don't need to prove anything - their credentials speak for themselves.

Then comes a bunch of people that hasn't accomplished a shit, and starts slinging accusations from one side of the fence and to the other. Then the PC Police rolls in and shits on one side on the fence and gives the other side a candy. Then the side with shit has to be mad quietly.

This shit also does a great job at marginalizing the men, because by saying, "The Male Gaze" one presumes that all males gaze similarly. Well shit news, they don't. Culture, upbringing, ethnicity, etfuckingc make one male as different from the other just as much as same factors make one female different from the next.

Fuck Political Correctness and its attempt to lump some groups (males, haters) into homogenous piles while trying to pick other groups (females, minorities) into a million special cupcakes.


Oh shit, did I just DISCUSS? Well fuck.

 

[hiver]

Hiver Age: What The Fuckening.

aww..cmonn... posting a gif and a video of Ghost in the Shell as a part of reply to the subject of objectification is too confusing?

wtf? Really?

 

[circ]

No. But rants half a page long that make no sense is.

 

[Mozgoëbstvo]

So, bros, you want to have a serious discussion? Because trolling and joking is absolutely fine by me, but if I see that there's no will to discuss things at length and seriously, well, I'll piss off and do other stuff.
Heh, you know what? I'll set a number and a time limit. If in the span of five hours at least five codexers don't manifest the explicit intention of discussing this shit - which is quite important and interesting, in my opinion - seriously and thoroughly, I'll quit this particular thread forever, because my planet needs me.

Personally, I just lay things out as I see it. I am pretty good at reducing things to their simplest forms. For discussions like this it's all BS anyway, it's not like politics are based on logic it's all emotional and belief based. As soon as someone makes a logical mistake and can't see it there's little point to argue, it just goes to is so is not ad nauseum.

But with the women's rights and all civil rights I agree with you the goal now seems more like a cash grab to me.

First thing: it's "ad nauseam". Just FYI, but english speakers tend to get this wrong everytime because nauseum and nauseam are homophones in english.

I know, it's hard. But even in these cases, I think an effort should be made anyways. There's always benefit to be obtained from gaining an understanding and communicating effectively with as many people as possible. This is, of course, very hard and very frustrating. I too, for my first post, was obnubilated by anger and CAPS although I keep by my points even now that I'm calm.
We don't all function through pure logic, and even the most hardened of snarking trolls cave in to emotions. When communicating with people, it's very hard to put yourself in their shoes and think about what they're saying and why they might.
We tend to forget that these people (yes, even those who appear as simpletons) have a multifarious inner life dictated by their own personal experiences.

Through the void of the internet, the most far-reaching but yet the least effective of all means of communication, this kind of interpersonal distance is even higher.

Through the screen we aren't communicating with a person, but with an avatar-figment of it, and it's even easier to forget that there are people behind a screen.
Most of you wouldn't (at least, I hope), for example, overtly insult someone in their face as you do through the internet when they harmlessly express a dissenting opinion. The violence of
misunderstanding and all the woes comes to extreme as the distance between people is augmented.

So, "going along, there's nothing to be done here" seems, in our minds, like the most effective way to deal with certain little conflicts.
But what does happen? The conflict stays there, unsolved, with all the ruffled feathers it generated and no progress being made.

So, if we do enter in communication with people, I think it should be done WELL, not superficially. It is worth trying, even if you don't see the use.
And what if people get emotive and irrational about a topic? Well, get in tune with it. Try to get through the same logical points, and speak softly
and understandingly, but firmly. The worst thing you can do if speak a little, and then SNAP again midway.

I don't think that just ignoring something, as overwhelming as it seems, works, because that something, if you do nothing about it, will probably
come to bite you back despite your "I don't bother you, you don't bother me" sort of non-aggression policy.

Of course, even if you try to build bridges, people won't come to your side instantly. But who said it was easy? Communication should be built
constantly. In my opinion it's better than not trying and closing yourself in a selected cocoon of like-minded people - who often, surprise surprise,
also turn out to be fundamentally out of sync with you more than you would have believed.

That's why Angthoron, Doc Savage and the likes should at least try. It's not like it will get any shittier, amirite?

And well, for those few people who really are irretrievably conflicting about something and really don't want to understand and confront,
to those I wish to live a fulfilling life and I get on with mine.

 

[circ]

Jesus christ Moz, all this for one fucking typo?

 

[hiver]

No. But rants half a page long that make no sense is.

oh boy...

- first, i didnt write anything half a page long.
- second, if im going to talk about something it is only sensible i try to explain it instead of just posting one liners.
- third, if you dont understand something it doesnt mean it makes no sense
- fourth, maybe you should ask that something you dont understand gets explained to you - instead of posting one liners as "wtf hiver?"
- fifth, since what i wrote is an explanation and other posters understood it im not sure i can explain it to you especially because you are opting for an easier way of just proclaiming it "makes no sense at all" and "rant half a page long".

 

[Mozgoëbstvo]

Jesus christ Moz, all this for one fucking typo?

Good one, I didn't expect that

 

[Mrowak]

I tried to trim the whole thing - it is really huge. If you think I put something out of context then sorry - it wasn't intentional.

For the sake of clarity, this is not going to be a clear high-brow vs low-brow example. Let's consider a mechanism instead: segmenting games into DLCs. In the long run it is hardly a positive thing which leads to various forms of abuse and decrease in quality.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

For the example to make sense first you have to show in which way is, say, the focus on cheap sexuality akin to DLC, other than in you don't liking either.

I agreed that this had nothing to do with the original argument. It was to clearly illustrate the mechanism itself... and how having a strong subjective opinion on something does matter and can be sunjected to criticism. Apparently it failed.

Define "clearly wrong or harmful."

Come on, our post are already awfully long. Defining why DLCs in the current shape and form are wrong would be pointless - we both partook in a number of discussions like that and we are familiar with their gist. We simply don't have the luxury to go over every thing from the basics, unless we talked face-to-face. The same with "proper" in the previous post - we both know what I was talking about. Please, just assume the first definition that comes to your mind, even if you don't agree with it. I know what are you trying to do here, but it won't work in this format.

Games, as a product of culture, are nothing but a vessel for the dominant tendencies they are expressing. They do not influence worldviews and opinions as much as reflect them, and thus the problem, if there's a problem to begin with, is in the society that spawns the product and creates the market for it.

... which ends up influencing the society once again. We both know that worldviews and opinions do not come out of the blue but by constant osmosis through a variety of channals. And due to rather longish nature ofgames they may have a synergical effect on the society. No, I don't have real figures to support that, but it is safe to assume this from extrapolation from other fields of knowledge e.g. studies on learning, advertising and viral marketing.

Are you going to change society by boicotting a videogame?

Why the hell not? That games have changed the society and the way we perceive each other is an objective fact. Look at us now - discussing stuff on an internet forum - two strangers from two different countries having some serious annoyance and fun (at least in my case) over... games. Information flows and we organise ourselves in groups which do affect the real marketing politics of companies.

We already doing changing the society to some measure - maybe not only by boycotting but generally talking about we find wrong. Our Codexian "whining" helped to kick start projects such as Wasteland 2. Thousands of people are starting to come around to our collective viewpoint that there's something wrong with gaming. There are real objectively observed results of that. It's people talking about the issue that drove this change. We could not achieve this if we just waited for someone to conduct an objective research whose results - to be valid - had to be measured for a number of years. No, we did that by coming out and sharing are largely biased views, sharpening them until we've achieved what we have now. It is still imperfact but it gets its job done and pushes the change into the direction we appreciate.

I could argue discussing anything that goes beyond objective facts is pointless because interpretation is always ilussion until it has been objectively demonstrated, moment in which it stops being interpretation (and thus interpretation is ALWAYS ilussion).

That would not be very sporty of me, though.

...

From here on, down. Yes, I know - quoting facts, such us more-or-less objective research data, and then using this data to prove your point is the foundation of any serious debate. Point taken... But when we lack the research data on this rather trivial issue, then what? Not to discuss it because it is pointless, I gather. You feeling that something is wrong just means you have to STFU, because everything that is subjective is evil, no matter that you are faced with subjectivity at every corner and your capability to deal with it and use it to your advantage is critical.

Then thing is we are not talking here about objective reality, but the realm of subjective itself. That something is subjective doesn't mean it is not important or that it should be devalued as this is the pillar our worldviews and by extension characters are built upon. We currently describe the same thing looking at it from a different viewpoint. We learned of each other's dellsions and we shall see what we can make out of it. Maybe I'll come around to accepting yours. Maybe my delusion will alter yours. Maybe if you look at the same thing with different eyes enough times you will discover more objective truth about the item. This works wonders with abstract concepts, which even modern psychiatry has hard time measuring. I find this conversation perfectly natural, and fail to see how I break one's taboo. I mean, sharing views is perfectly fine - opinions exectly aren't born in a vacum after all. What's wrong with that? Yes, it is less efficient, but it gets it's job done... as long as you are open to listen to the other side.

What we are doing now is basically food-for-thought exercise - a speculation, a preface to hypothesis. Who knows, maybe it will lead both us to carry out some real research on the issues in question? And just seeing your view of things makes me become a less of an asshole in general, so there is a clear profit for me here (Unless someone finds being an asshole to be beneficial. Again, subjectivity.). On the flipside, "Not giving a fuck" would only perpetuate my bias and make me a total, two-faced dick.

Of course, part of the problem here is that if something can be characterised by a derogatory feature it is good enough reason to criticise it. People take such criticism personally, interpreting it as attacks on their ego, which is one short step away from criticizing individuals and their worldviews. This - as I said - it is not bad IMO. It's natural.

What I am trying to say is, why care? People finds sexuality satisfying, and that's a self evident fact. All judgements we elucidate from that are interpretations, and thus delusions the moment you believe in them. If they want to masturbate furiously at the thought of murderous nuns with tight outfits, good for them.

Or is it good for them... objectively...?

Which is exactly what he was saying: Depth and meaning are a projection of your own search for them, they do not exist outside of your mind. Which does not mean what you thus discover isn't valuable to you.

Precisely. But this also doesn't mean that what you say cannot also be valuable to someone else. That's how communication work. Pretty much all forms of entertainment work this way as well - authors strive to show the depth where they found it through sensory media. The audience doesn't have to find it, or may find it somewhere else, but ultimately it is the act of communication that matters.

Jesus, I have become the poster girl for postmodernist witches.

Please, accept my condolencens.

Besides, I agreed beauty does make things better on its own.

Which fits strangely well with what we are discussing,

I hoped you'd notice that.

...as the theory behind glamour magic is that it messes not with reality but with the recipient's head: A pooka gives you a gold coin that later turns to be a stone, yet in reality it was always a stone. He just told you to interpretate it as a gold coin for a cheap laugh.

How much easier can you tell yourself something is obviously true when there is nothing more than a stone, then?

And then, if there's only a stone, why not create around it the delusion that you enjoy and will make you happy instead of the one that will turn you into a grumpy old man no one likes?

Or how about we show the stone to others and collectively determine what it really is, and what uses it can have? Well, I might have been fooled by a pooka, but glamour has this little fun thing about it that if perceived by right kind of people in the right context it becomes ineffective. The sheer fact that some people see a coin and others a stone is a cause to worry. If the stone is useless, it's better to throw it away and focus on some real things - like stones which have the right shape for a sling. Otherwise waking up one morning and discovering your golden coin disappeared may be quite a shock.

Having read the article once again, I realised why people here acted all allergic to it, despite its rather mild and fair-minded content.

But we aren't seeing eye to eye. Say, there's this upcoming Korean MMO by the name of Blade & Soul, one of the main attractions being the guy behind the character and visual design is none other than Hyung-Tae Kim, and I believe his wife, Jiyun Chae, is also on the project....

...

For many of the players, Hyung-Tae Kim's design and style is the product, and the game around it is just a bonus.

It's a little bit like our heroe relishing at the thought of having a coin, as opposed to actually spending it on something objectively useful. Funny thing, this is exactly the kind of behaviour fairy stories would warn against.

Of course on the other side of the pendulum we have a christian miser who had written all those stories for propaganda reasons.

Many of those who go and buy shit because "sex sells" are buying the sexuality, so no one's taking advantage of them as long as the T&A they were promised is there, no matter how much or how few they were promised.

I wish everyone would have your wits to actually be so perceptive. Then I wouldn't have any problem. Enjoying the thing for what it really is and knowing the moderation in it is something totally different than what contemporary sociotechniques in advertising aim to create.

Our little chat has gone places I have to say.

I think there's no bloody way we see eye to eye. Still, as usual it's been fun.