OT: Much of our culture is based upon ...

[narf poit chez BOOM]

...Information warfare. Advertisements; points-of-view (Political, philisophical and religious); culture, counter-culture and counter-counter-culture, et cetera. A great clamoring confusing of people who want you to buy their book, their cause, their claims.

If I may make a claim, I very much doubt our current cultural climate.

[frightlever]

Turn off your TV or buy a PVR. Install Firefox and Adblock Plus. That pretty much leaves magazine ads and billboards.

Unfortunately you're going to have no luck convincing the world at large that they shouldn't believe the drivel they're being fed.

A thought occured to me the other day - when I was a kid I listened to radio on LW, everything from Radio Moscow to the Voice of America. Nowadays I have a digital radio that only picks up radio from about a ten mile radius. Our culture is going to be what we're given because every scrap of it will be controlled and locked down forever through copyright and DRM.

[Arkcon]

I got into an intensive argument with some relatives the other day. My point -- the telephone was a dumb invention.

People really hated it a century ago. It ruined the fabric of their society. Back then, you couldn't just talk to anybody, anytime. You had to be introduced, and you had to be of similar social status. The telephone broke all of that to smithereens.

Back when I was a kid, the phone was a communication device for family and friends. Now we're swamped with telemarketers, who refuse to believe once they've got our phone number, that we don't want any.

Now coupled with Caller ID (when its not blocked -- thanks phone company, charge us for a service then take cash from someone else to deny us the service) and answering machines (when they bother to answer -- their automated systems allow them to not bother speaking to a machine) its almost useful again.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

The problem is, it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern the truth from the mistakes, half-truths and lies.

Choice is good; it does not follow that all choices are good.


I abhor cell phones and to a lesser degree telephones. If cell phones were only used for emergencies they would be a good idea.

To put it simply, solitude is a necessity just as communication is. And telephones, by their nature, make it hard to ignore them - The call could always be important.

Now e-mail, that could revive communication if handled correctly. Messages can be marked urgent, I can generally take as long as I want replying and, to a certain degree, unwanted messages can be filtered. My google mail, for example, almost never gets unwanted mail.

(On the other hand, I generally communicate the longest in forums - Wonderful things, forums, for many of the same reasons. e-mail, despite its potential, still feels awkward)

[capnq]

narf poit chez BOOM said: If I may make a claim, I very much doubt our current cultural climate.

The only thing that has changed is the volume and density of the information and the speed at which it propagates. Ideas have been battling since language was invented. If you think things are bad now, wait until memetics matures to the point that it has functional applications.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

At least knowing about memetics acts as a sort of information counter-virus.

And what makes you think it hasn't? Ever found yourself with an advertising jingle in your head that just won't leave?

[Randallw]

It is not my intent to offend, and generally I keep my views to my self, but I'm not into self censorship, and after all the topic was already started. Please excuse me if I wander off point.

At the risk of sounding like a socialist I believe the problem is the capitalist mentality. Now I despise May day protestors who are just a bunch of anarchists looking for an excuse to smash things, hiding behind their bandanas in a crowd of naive environmentalists, but also I despise rampant consumerism. If I go shopping I am disgusted at the number of different brands. We do not need 20 different brands of Cornflakes, or dozens of brands of cheese. I see no need to destroy nature needlessly but also I am not a eco nut. If it serves humanity to tear down the forest for a meaningful purpose I could care less about nature. Should, in my lifetime, I leave earth I wouldn't even give it a second look back. This just happens to be a quirk of mine. There is a word for what I see as meaningless attachment to something that has fulfilled its use. The idea is so foreign to me I tell the truth when I say I can never, and I mean never, remember what the word is. I think it starts with sym, but I can simply never remember what it is.

Just this afternoon something about capitalism got to me. I can't say what it was, my memory stinks, but I remember it was an epiphany at what damage Capitalism/Consumerism, does. I don't have a mobile phone (cell phone), I don't have an Ipod, or any of those other wifi things. They are meaningless. I can't say I might not have such things as a mobile phone in future, but I have no need for them at the moment. I never saw a need to buy a DvD player until I was given a $40 one for my birthday. I always knew the day would come I would have to get one but I imagined it would be once video tapes stopped being made.

I actually spend an astonishing amount of time being philosophical. I have mentioned to my family it is impossible for me to be bored as long as I can ponder philosophy in my head. It seems to me people in the modern world are not serious about doing what is necessary. People seem too preoccupied with what I see as "playing" through life. They want to get through life but are not interested in anything but playing along. It seems to be a a matter of making things as easy as possible but never actually doing anything that might be difficult and cause conflict. I foresee little opportunity I could actually carry out the ideas I have, and can even admit I myself am too lazy to do any better. In my mind knowing what needs to be done but not doing it is compatible. I just play along with everyone else in what I see as the social game.

Now I stated previously that I'm not Socialist, but I'll clarify that what I mean is Communist or Greeny. In my way I am Socialist but in the opposite to "Workers of the world unite". I don't believe the state should exist to serve the workers, but all people equally. Bit of a warning here I should point out, what sort of person uses terms like "The State" and "Order" To me Democracy is an outdated ancient greek ideal as abhorent as pederasty (Men and boys). The idea of having two major parties trying to curry favour, promising citizens little gifts so as to buy their vote instead of doing what is necessary is stupid. You have the party in office and the other is reduced to either doing the opposite of what the governemnt says because they're the "opposition" and so therefore must promise the opposite, or they claim "bipartisanship" because they know the topic at hand is dear to the public and would lose them votes otherwise. That's the cynic in me.

Apologies for throwing in the Iraq card, I'm on a roll (sort of like the rock in Raiders of the lost Ark), I'll be brief. What exactly is the problem with the war in Iraq? People claim US, and Australians like me, are being needlessly killed in Iraq. Didn't they free the Iraqis from Saddam, or is it that the Iraqi people are worth less than western lives. I'll grant you it seems not enough force was applied to ensure total victory, myself I believe in applying unstoppable force. Crush the problem with a sledgehammer and it won't be a problem. The activists appear to claim no US soldier should die to help Iraqis?, and others say it is a war to ensure oil supplies. Yeah ok, the west needs oil supplies. I won't say that was the reason, as opposed to freeing the Iraqis, but what exactly is wrong with that?. If your country needs a resource does it not make sense to pursue any means to ensure it. There are 2 reasons for any war, the economic reasons, resources, security, and the tainted idea of living space, and then there is the reason you make up so the people will follow you, like claiming another country launched a cowardly sneak attack after your government has been waging an undeclared economic war cutting off vital resources until the "enemy" has no choice but to fight in the open to ensure the resources they need. Or not telling am "ally" that someone is about to bomb their fleet because you need the ally to get involved, or secretly doing as much as possible to hinder a country and planning to enter the war after the next election while lying barefaced to the elctorate that you want nothing but peace. Or claiming there are WMD Don't get the idea I support one nation rolling over others, I actually support the idea of disbanding all countries and establishing a unified world government, but people use the "oil" card as if it means the government is evil as opposed to doing what they are supposed to do, advance the country as well as possible. You don't elect people to help other countries, you do it to improve yours don't you. Nationalism just forces one human being against another, and all people being equal is practically a crime against humanity. Clearly I don't believe any one should be elected. There is no better form of government you say, and I may well agree with you. It goes back to people wanting it easy, not work to do what is best. People forgive the faults beacuse it pleases them to go on about freedom and human rights.

I'll admit I have many ideas about what could be done to ensure order and prosperity but I am also keenly aware that with my various ailments I am not suited to be given any position of the authority I deem necessary. For a start I'm autistic and am aware of my inability to emphasis with other people. I mean would you want me running a country Also I have no sense of aesthetics. All products should be grey (although I am partial it seems to dark blue/black), why do you need any other colour? I prefer function over design. I have no sense of smell worth mentioning. Flowers are just strange meaningless colored leaves on plants. My taste in art, architecture and sculpture is firmly realism, much as my view on life. Perhaps I'm just a 90 year old man with alzheimers sitting in the retirement home spouting rascist epiphets but the nurses forgive me because I'm old and senile.

I can agree with only people who really need them having mobile phones. I feel the same way about the idiosyncracies of a piece of paper that is more than 200 years old, out of date, a lie when it was written (Tell the slaves all people are equal) and promises weapons to people when the only people who need weapons are armed forces, police and perhaps country farmers.

I know some people have a more delicate temperament so, again, I apologise. I know Narf in particular, as much as I consider him a friend and respect he started this thread, holds a contradictory viewpoint to myself. Sorry for that.

PS. Hey, you know how Truman defeated Dewey and Truman famously held up that paper claiming he'd lost. The reason was because the paper held a poll to find out who would win. Problem was they did a phone poll and of course the people who could afford a phone were supporting Dewey, instead of the majority of poorer people who were intending to vote for Truman.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Life is meeting people with contradictory viewpoints.

I'm going to say something radical here, and that is that nearly any government can work, so long as the people in charge care about doing the right thing.

Democracy is just a relatively peaceful way of changing the people in charge.

To add to that, all governments are essentially democracies. The only real difference is the violence with which the change is effected.

That is another reason for the bearing of arms; so that change can be effected.

And, lastly, one persons' honest, faltering best means more, in my opinion, than anothers' confident, successful half-effort.

I like to think of the United States constitution as one of those things. With all its problems, it was better than much that came before and building toward that ideal has solved, to a significant extent, some rather large problems.

And, practically, the person who tries their best and does not manage to match the challenge will, in the long run, out-do any lazy rabbit, to refer to a well-known story.

It is rare for such a person to never overcome their challenge, if it is within their power.

[Renegade 13]

Personally, (and I think I agree with you guys about this) I think cell-phones are unnecessary for those who don't have life-and-death jobs; for example, paramedics, the police, etc. If someone can't get a hold of me for the 6 hours I'm driving into the city and buying some stuff I need, then driving back, it's not gonna be the end of the world.

Democracy may be an old idea (and I'll disagree with it being on par with such disgusting predilictions as pederasty...), I have yet to read about / experience anything that apparently works as well. Now, I'm not saying it doesn't have its flaws, because it most certainly does. Introduce to me a more workable system, and I'll be happy to check it out!

[Tim_Ward]

It is very odd to see a bunch of people on a computer game forum condemning people for having things which are "unnecessary" & "meaningless". I'll just assume everyone saying that needs a computer and an internet connection as a life and death part of their work, shall I?

You had to be introduced, and you had to be of similar social status.

:S

Yeah, it was awesome back when everyone knew their place.

To put it simply, solitude is a necessity just as communication is. And telephones, by their nature, make it hard to ignore them - The call could always be important.

Mine comes with an "off" button.

To me Democracy is an outdated ancient greek ideal as abhorent as pederasty (Men and boys). The idea of having two major parties trying to curry favour, promising citizens little gifts so as to buy their vote instead of doing what is necessary is stupid. You have the party in office and the other is reduced to either doing the opposite of what the governemnt says because they're the "opposition" and so therefore must promise the opposite, or they claim "bipartisanship" because they know the topic at hand is dear to the public and would lose them votes otherwise.

Well, that is actually the modern take on democracy, not the Greek one. The Greek system was much closer to what we'd describe today as direct democracy. Of course, the Greek city states were very small and the population in antiquity was very low compared to today (and the population of citizens even smaller), so the ancient greek system is probably no longer practical.

It's very easy to just say that government should "do what is necessary", but it's not anywhere near as simple as that. People have different ideas about what is necessary and what is desirable.