Last week was slow, sorry about that. Just one of those weeks where there aren't any fucks to spare. We'll see if this week manages to surpass the legacy of the last one.
I'm bad at finishing things. Pretty much always have been. I think its a weird side effect of a deep and formative abandonment complex. I can hardly bare to read a book all the way through for feeling like I'm losing something. It's probably got something to do with a more than healthy sense of sloth too, but it's not just that. I feel like finishing something is putting it behind you in a way I'm uncomfortable with. Like you're putting aside something that you've given a bit of yourself to. I don't know, it's strange to write about.
When I take on a project; a story, designing a game, running a campaign, I feel fantastic. I love the idea of creating something, leaving even a small good thing in the world. But then there comes a point where I can see the end of the thing and I shut down. I don't know how to just let a thing be done and move on with my life, so I get all fuckheaded and lose the vision. Even if I do manage to finish a project of any consequence it falls apart at the end because I'm too messed up by then to wrap it up elegantly. I'm working on it but the more I explore the anxiety, the more things it seems to tie to. It's disheartening to see how much of my life, how many people I care about, have been affected by my panicked death grip on the objects of my affection. The terrible fear that the things I love will leave me.
I hate that last sentence. It's been slowly ruining my life since I was a child. Writing it makes my heart drop. Because its a self-fulfilling prophesy. I can't stand to finish a project and be done with something I've invested myself in, so I poison my own projects. I'm so terrified of losing the people I care about I freak out and risk driving them away. I feel like its getting better but the more I work on it the bigger it seems, hopefully attention bias. I know this is kind of a masturbatory post, but this is where I write things I'm thinking about. I don't know, fuck it.
Showing posts with label Failure to perform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Failure to perform. Show all posts
Monday, May 9, 2016
Monday, August 31, 2015
We Can't Get Ahead if We Keep Stepping on Each Other's Necks
I swear I'm not dead. The last couple of weeks have just been weird, I'm back now. So I'm going to celebrate my return by beating a dead horse. It was brought to my attention over my little sabbatical how fucking badly our society handles the gender discussion. We're not even bothering with the basics in this one; if the general tenor of modern gender politics eludes you this post can wait for you to get educated, or you could not read this one. I truly wouldn't blame you at this point. No, today we're talking about why the whole conversation is probably fucked.
The first major stumbling block in the conversation about gender has nothing to do with anything even remotely involving what bits everyone has or how they feel about them. When people start talking about bad shit that happened to them a certain percentage of the population seem to compete for biggest victim. That percentage is close enough to 100 that we could probably just call it everybody. Not everybody all the time, but everybody has had that day. When someone brings up their troubles and you just can't help but share your own, for whatever reason. Now, sometimes this is an ego thing, sometimes its an attempt to make a connection, sometimes its just the bad shit version of sitting around trading stories. Unfortunately, they all look alike from the outside and we're hardwired to assume the first. So by contributing your story, regardless of intent, its assumed you're either trying to spotlight or out-victim the other party. Add in the fact that you can't really talk your way out of that assumption without making it worse and the conversation starts to look pretty bleak.
The second hurdle here is essentially that men exist. Not because we're evil or stupid or exceptionally privileged or whatever, but because men are both the oppressors and fellow oppressed. "The Patriarchy" is the go to villain of the gender debate, and to some extent rightfully so since the practices established by several historically insular groups of sociopathic, shitsouled douchebags oppressed a planet for pretty much all of history. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that men are also damaged by gender stereotypes; emotional abuse, disregarding male victimization in rape and assault cases etc. However, men have a precarious place in discussing gender issues, partially because some people shit the bed for the rest of us, but also partially because of the ease with which criticism can be interpreted as the aforementioned bed-shitting. A man talking about feminism tends to come off as a misogynist, a parrot, or a "man-splainer", which really limits our viable roles in the conversation.
There is no monolith in this story, feminism isn't made up of one egalitarian philosophy made into a movement, the patriarchy isn't the endless ranks of white men hellbent on destroying all they survey, and believing that we should have fair treatment regardless of circumstance doesn't make you part of any group. If it did this probably wouldn't be a problem anymore. Its easy to point to a system and blame it on those most benefited, logical even. But doing so ignores every unwitting contributor, every asshole willing to fuck themselves over to keep someone else from succeeding, everyone who has let things get worse instead of trying to do better. Sadly, the systems of oppression we toil under are ancient and vast machines, built by every act of shitty self-promotion, cruelty, selfish ambition, and hostile competition in history. We're all guilty, and its not enough to tear down the system, we need to make something better or we'll just end up here again.
The first major stumbling block in the conversation about gender has nothing to do with anything even remotely involving what bits everyone has or how they feel about them. When people start talking about bad shit that happened to them a certain percentage of the population seem to compete for biggest victim. That percentage is close enough to 100 that we could probably just call it everybody. Not everybody all the time, but everybody has had that day. When someone brings up their troubles and you just can't help but share your own, for whatever reason. Now, sometimes this is an ego thing, sometimes its an attempt to make a connection, sometimes its just the bad shit version of sitting around trading stories. Unfortunately, they all look alike from the outside and we're hardwired to assume the first. So by contributing your story, regardless of intent, its assumed you're either trying to spotlight or out-victim the other party. Add in the fact that you can't really talk your way out of that assumption without making it worse and the conversation starts to look pretty bleak.
The second hurdle here is essentially that men exist. Not because we're evil or stupid or exceptionally privileged or whatever, but because men are both the oppressors and fellow oppressed. "The Patriarchy" is the go to villain of the gender debate, and to some extent rightfully so since the practices established by several historically insular groups of sociopathic, shitsouled douchebags oppressed a planet for pretty much all of history. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that men are also damaged by gender stereotypes; emotional abuse, disregarding male victimization in rape and assault cases etc. However, men have a precarious place in discussing gender issues, partially because some people shit the bed for the rest of us, but also partially because of the ease with which criticism can be interpreted as the aforementioned bed-shitting. A man talking about feminism tends to come off as a misogynist, a parrot, or a "man-splainer", which really limits our viable roles in the conversation.
There is no monolith in this story, feminism isn't made up of one egalitarian philosophy made into a movement, the patriarchy isn't the endless ranks of white men hellbent on destroying all they survey, and believing that we should have fair treatment regardless of circumstance doesn't make you part of any group. If it did this probably wouldn't be a problem anymore. Its easy to point to a system and blame it on those most benefited, logical even. But doing so ignores every unwitting contributor, every asshole willing to fuck themselves over to keep someone else from succeeding, everyone who has let things get worse instead of trying to do better. Sadly, the systems of oppression we toil under are ancient and vast machines, built by every act of shitty self-promotion, cruelty, selfish ambition, and hostile competition in history. We're all guilty, and its not enough to tear down the system, we need to make something better or we'll just end up here again.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
I Guess We Could Just Use The Internet, But That Is Missing The Point.
I am a fan of society in general. As an animal, there is no better survival tactic for a species like ours then to congregate, prosper, and propagate, though we might be to much into that last one. Society comes with plenty of benefits. Collective knowledge makes our understanding of the world only ever get deeper. This knowledge has helped us get over diseases, making sure that people can survive minor problems like the flu. There are costs of having a society with shit like laws and taxes. Laws to keep people safe, and taxes to pay for the enforcing of said laws.
The problem with these costs is that they are taken for granted. People are expected to know how to file taxes, despite them being notoriously obtuse. This extends to more basic information too. People are expected to know how to do everyday tasks and how to navigate society as a whole because everyone does it. The problem is in people just assuming that other people have this knowledge, despite never being told how to do it. They will fend for themselves.
I think this tack is wrong. Fending for yourself is important for some things, but that is the case for like 75% of western life, and relieving some of that weight by explaining a few things that sometimes get left by the wayside could help people. I think it would be a good idea to make a high school or college class that explains to you basic social rules and expectations. This might sound silly, but what if a person explained how to file your taxes? Hey, maybe you won't fuck up if somebody tells you how to do it correctly! You could add stuff like: cars need oil/other fluids and how to change them, how to budget, the importance of the work/life balance, basic repair/safety/maintenance of your home, and how to change a tire. Simple stuff like that. If you make it a requirement for graduating, you can make sure that people know the basic rules that they are expected to follow.
I realize this sounds a little odd. I figure most of you reading this are asking "don't people figure this out as they go along?" and its a fair point. Most people figure out the bulk of this stuff on their own, but I don't think they should have to. It should at least be an option. Also society would benefit if people knew how to do this stuff. Society is a complicated beast, this could just make it a little more manageable.
The problem with these costs is that they are taken for granted. People are expected to know how to file taxes, despite them being notoriously obtuse. This extends to more basic information too. People are expected to know how to do everyday tasks and how to navigate society as a whole because everyone does it. The problem is in people just assuming that other people have this knowledge, despite never being told how to do it. They will fend for themselves.
I think this tack is wrong. Fending for yourself is important for some things, but that is the case for like 75% of western life, and relieving some of that weight by explaining a few things that sometimes get left by the wayside could help people. I think it would be a good idea to make a high school or college class that explains to you basic social rules and expectations. This might sound silly, but what if a person explained how to file your taxes? Hey, maybe you won't fuck up if somebody tells you how to do it correctly! You could add stuff like: cars need oil/other fluids and how to change them, how to budget, the importance of the work/life balance, basic repair/safety/maintenance of your home, and how to change a tire. Simple stuff like that. If you make it a requirement for graduating, you can make sure that people know the basic rules that they are expected to follow.
I realize this sounds a little odd. I figure most of you reading this are asking "don't people figure this out as they go along?" and its a fair point. Most people figure out the bulk of this stuff on their own, but I don't think they should have to. It should at least be an option. Also society would benefit if people knew how to do this stuff. Society is a complicated beast, this could just make it a little more manageable.
Monday, February 23, 2015
The Path to Agoraphobia is Paved with Good Intentions, Poorly Executed.
Over the course of the last several years I've pretty much completely lost the ability to functionally interact with people. I'm not completely sure when it started but it probably had something to do with the fact that I stopped leaving the house. There was a period in which I could only afford to leave the house if I was looking for or going to work and even then bus fare was a prohibitive expense. Preexisting antisocial traits started to assert themselves more aggressively as my whole interaction with society was relegated to news-bites and poorly contextualized academia (thanks higher education!). Over time habits were established in such a way that I could no longer come up with reasons to go out. After I was told outright not to get a fucking job the idea of leaving the house fell even farther from a necessary evil to make ends meet to the least interesting or meaningful way to waste my wife's money, so I just stopped.
I've come to understand, with some work, what a bad idea this was. Justification became rule, rule became habit and habit became neurosis. Now the thought of doing anything at all, much less anything out of the house is accompanied by a combination of panic, apathy, and rationalizing my inaction. Now I can't even trust myself to be able to break the habit without outsourcing my motivation to someone else. I will get better, I have to.
Thanks for playing therapist, beloved internet. Now I'm going to go psyche myself up so I might be able to do something today.
I've come to understand, with some work, what a bad idea this was. Justification became rule, rule became habit and habit became neurosis. Now the thought of doing anything at all, much less anything out of the house is accompanied by a combination of panic, apathy, and rationalizing my inaction. Now I can't even trust myself to be able to break the habit without outsourcing my motivation to someone else. I will get better, I have to.
Thanks for playing therapist, beloved internet. Now I'm going to go psyche myself up so I might be able to do something today.
Monday, December 22, 2014
Jesus Christ Not Again
So, ugh, we've talked about shitty police stuff before. I can't describe how much I want to not have to do this, but I can't help it at this point. I've been trying to hold my tongue for a while here, hoping it would get better, but my hopes are often vain and counter to the impulses of human nature. So I'm just going to say it.
If you choose (and in our culture it is fucking always a choice) to go into law enforcement you need to understand that you aren't a person while you're wearing your uniform. Police officers are servants, says it right there in the oft repeated, usually disregarded motto, protect and serve. Any system of policing that values the safety and comfort of officers over the safety of absolutely all civilians, criminal and casual observer alike, is despotism. You went into a field where a certain (astronomically low) percentage of the population feels the need to kill you, don't fucking antagonize people. The role of a police force is to protect the populace and ensure that those who commit crimes against that populace are processed by the legal system arbitrated by the society. It is absolutely fucking never okay for a police officer to kill. It doesn't matter if your life is in jeopardy. It doesn't matter if you feel entitled or justified. You are not a person. You, as a police officer, are a construct manifested by our society to make sure that due process is maintained. Any law that protects you above a citizen is tyrannic, and system that allows you to kill is, at best, catastrophically unjust. Police officers are representatives of justice, as the society they serve defines it. No extra privileges, no special treatment. They are mechanisms as long as they are acting in an official capacity, and civilians the second they aren't.
If you choose (and in our culture it is fucking always a choice) to go into law enforcement you need to understand that you aren't a person while you're wearing your uniform. Police officers are servants, says it right there in the oft repeated, usually disregarded motto, protect and serve. Any system of policing that values the safety and comfort of officers over the safety of absolutely all civilians, criminal and casual observer alike, is despotism. You went into a field where a certain (astronomically low) percentage of the population feels the need to kill you, don't fucking antagonize people. The role of a police force is to protect the populace and ensure that those who commit crimes against that populace are processed by the legal system arbitrated by the society. It is absolutely fucking never okay for a police officer to kill. It doesn't matter if your life is in jeopardy. It doesn't matter if you feel entitled or justified. You are not a person. You, as a police officer, are a construct manifested by our society to make sure that due process is maintained. Any law that protects you above a citizen is tyrannic, and system that allows you to kill is, at best, catastrophically unjust. Police officers are representatives of justice, as the society they serve defines it. No extra privileges, no special treatment. They are mechanisms as long as they are acting in an official capacity, and civilians the second they aren't.
Friday, December 19, 2014
We Negotiate With Terrorists....Wait.
I am currently kind of cranky at Sony right now. North Korea (according to the FBI) or some other group of hackers hacked Sony a while back, and in the resulting chaos, threatened to attack movie theaters if they showed the movie "The Interview". Showing their commitment to the art of film making and integrity as a company, Sony immediately acquiesced to the threats and pulled the movie from all theaters. This was a terrible decision that will only lead to more problems in the future.
The second you give in to people who threaten you, they win. It shows them that all they have to do to get what they want is make threats against people. Also there is no guarantee that giving them what they want will stop them from hurting people or releasing your sensitive data that they stole. CNN reported that they are still threatening Sony. So there you go, it didn't do anything to stop them. And if integrity isn't your thing, maybe greed is. How much money does Sony lose on this? $44 Million according to wikipedia's page on the film. Because the movie will probably never go to theaters or be released for sale at all, all of that budget gets lost.
Look, I get it. If people got hurt it would look bad for your company. If you are worried about people being hurt make a statement explaining the situation. Informed consent is a thing, and if people are worried about being hurt they won't go to the theater. I bet they would have sold a bunch of tickets due to the "Lets show those terrorists a giant middle finger by all watching the thing they don't want us to see" stance that a lot of people take around these types of situations. And if the threats still had people worried, I am sure that the police would have posted guards around major theaters. In all honesty I thought that this might have been a marketing scheme until Sony actually pulled the film. Get a bunch of people to see a movie just because it is controversial.
Acquiescence does nothing good in this situation. Terrorism's goal is to enforce change by making the other side afraid. The second you do anything out of fear, they win.
Also, we hit 100 Posts. Yay or whatever. =p
The second you give in to people who threaten you, they win. It shows them that all they have to do to get what they want is make threats against people. Also there is no guarantee that giving them what they want will stop them from hurting people or releasing your sensitive data that they stole. CNN reported that they are still threatening Sony. So there you go, it didn't do anything to stop them. And if integrity isn't your thing, maybe greed is. How much money does Sony lose on this? $44 Million according to wikipedia's page on the film. Because the movie will probably never go to theaters or be released for sale at all, all of that budget gets lost.
Look, I get it. If people got hurt it would look bad for your company. If you are worried about people being hurt make a statement explaining the situation. Informed consent is a thing, and if people are worried about being hurt they won't go to the theater. I bet they would have sold a bunch of tickets due to the "Lets show those terrorists a giant middle finger by all watching the thing they don't want us to see" stance that a lot of people take around these types of situations. And if the threats still had people worried, I am sure that the police would have posted guards around major theaters. In all honesty I thought that this might have been a marketing scheme until Sony actually pulled the film. Get a bunch of people to see a movie just because it is controversial.
Acquiescence does nothing good in this situation. Terrorism's goal is to enforce change by making the other side afraid. The second you do anything out of fear, they win.
Also, we hit 100 Posts. Yay or whatever. =p
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Seasonal Disa-fuckthis Disorder
I loathe people this time of year. Its not entirely a christmas thing or a holiday thing, or even a rabid consumerism thing, though my issue is related. I hate people in the winter because american culture apparently demands that, what is for me, the most beautiful, comfortable, and peaceful time of year has to be fucking terrible.
Between the narcissistic, masturbatory rage of the evangelicals bitching about how their monopoly on a season is slipping, to the tragic slide of joyous celebrations into vile obligations as progressively more distant and abusive families bludgeon each other with politics and forced proximity, society fails this season completely.
Additionally, this season means enough cooking to rival the feast of Tantalus, and though I love to cook, it means that I have neither the patience nor the inclination to write more on this subject than this. So I'll just say that if its cold outside and you're an asshole, fuck you. Viciously. With the pointiest, most horrific, seasonally appropriate prop you can find.
Between the narcissistic, masturbatory rage of the evangelicals bitching about how their monopoly on a season is slipping, to the tragic slide of joyous celebrations into vile obligations as progressively more distant and abusive families bludgeon each other with politics and forced proximity, society fails this season completely.
Additionally, this season means enough cooking to rival the feast of Tantalus, and though I love to cook, it means that I have neither the patience nor the inclination to write more on this subject than this. So I'll just say that if its cold outside and you're an asshole, fuck you. Viciously. With the pointiest, most horrific, seasonally appropriate prop you can find.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
SPAAAAAAAAACEEEEEE! I'mma Go To Space.
Brian and I have expressed our general approval of scientific progress on several occasions around these parts. One of our biggest interests along those lines is space travel. The exploration of planets outside our own, the possible revelations waiting for us in the Deep Black, its the stuff nerd boners are made of. I think most people are probably on board with us on this, space is exciting, I mean seriously, kids wanting to grow up to be astronauts is cliche` common. So why aren't we out there? Why has the biggest intellectual resource for space exploration been whittled down to a bunch of politicians grumbling at each other?
The most common excuse I've seen sited in regards to why we shouldn't bother, you know, exploring the universe, is that it isn't a worthwhile expense. There are no words to express how absolutely, fundamentally fucking wrong that is, nor am I possessed of the patience to describe how many levels this argument fucks up on. Of course, that's never stopped me from trying before and its certainly not going to stop me here.
Point 1: Ugh, Fuck You. We live in a world where economic worth is entirely the product of (usually enforced) scarcity and perceived advantage. If the powers that be wanted the money made available it would be.
Point 2: You know what? Fuck you some more. Even if we're buying into the "market factors" bullshit as a stumbling block to scientific progress, that progress is its own reward. There is no such thing as a "worthless" scientific discovery. Even the weird penis ratio studies that we keep throwing money at (but exploring the infinite bounty of space is just not worth it) tell us things about the human body, psychology, how hormones do and don't effect development. These studies are functionally one step below naval gazing but they still inform us of new things, confirm or deny old things, and lead us to further inquiry. Failure to recognize the value of scientific progress to the level that denies space exploration represents a complete failure as a modern human.
Point 3: Na uh! Lets talk about the fact of extra terrestrial life. Its out there. See the period? There is no room for argument on that subject. I'm not saying that little grey men abduct red necks for sodomy experiments. I am saying that the universe is unimaginably vast, assuming that we are unique in that universe represents a degree of hubris that ought to be terminal. Absolutely any contact with extraterrestrial life would explode the limits of modern science, open up entire new fields of inquiry on every front, and give us opportunities we can't even fully conceive of. Even if that life develops exactly as we have, that says so very much about how reality works its staggering.
Point 4: Bite Me. Let's give the nay sayers as much charity as I can bare. If the questions to be answered mean nothing. If the progress to be made is meaningless. If science for science sake is of no value to their tiny, malformed brains. Even if all of that is true, space is just fucking full of resources. There are compounds found in asteroids that can't be found anywhere on earth. There are exoplanets that rain fucking diamond, carbon arrangements that can't occur naturally on our planet. Asteroids litter our solar system just fucking lousy with raw material begging to be mined. From an economic perspective even the colossal expenditures involved in space flight can just be passed onto consumers as our fears of finite resources fade ever farther away. sure it means we can't be gutted as badly for the resources themselves, but the cost of acquisition would more than cover it if they're really insistent about being an avaricious cuntbag about it.
So next time you read a newsfeed about some senator or wrong-heaed media mouthpiece bitching about how much NASA is costing us and how worthless space programs are, take a minute to write them. Tell them what an ignorant, shortsighted shit-licker they are. I suppose you could be more politic about it than that, but I don't see the point in mincing words with the enemy.
The most common excuse I've seen sited in regards to why we shouldn't bother, you know, exploring the universe, is that it isn't a worthwhile expense. There are no words to express how absolutely, fundamentally fucking wrong that is, nor am I possessed of the patience to describe how many levels this argument fucks up on. Of course, that's never stopped me from trying before and its certainly not going to stop me here.
Point 1: Ugh, Fuck You. We live in a world where economic worth is entirely the product of (usually enforced) scarcity and perceived advantage. If the powers that be wanted the money made available it would be.
Point 2: You know what? Fuck you some more. Even if we're buying into the "market factors" bullshit as a stumbling block to scientific progress, that progress is its own reward. There is no such thing as a "worthless" scientific discovery. Even the weird penis ratio studies that we keep throwing money at (but exploring the infinite bounty of space is just not worth it) tell us things about the human body, psychology, how hormones do and don't effect development. These studies are functionally one step below naval gazing but they still inform us of new things, confirm or deny old things, and lead us to further inquiry. Failure to recognize the value of scientific progress to the level that denies space exploration represents a complete failure as a modern human.
Point 3: Na uh! Lets talk about the fact of extra terrestrial life. Its out there. See the period? There is no room for argument on that subject. I'm not saying that little grey men abduct red necks for sodomy experiments. I am saying that the universe is unimaginably vast, assuming that we are unique in that universe represents a degree of hubris that ought to be terminal. Absolutely any contact with extraterrestrial life would explode the limits of modern science, open up entire new fields of inquiry on every front, and give us opportunities we can't even fully conceive of. Even if that life develops exactly as we have, that says so very much about how reality works its staggering.
Point 4: Bite Me. Let's give the nay sayers as much charity as I can bare. If the questions to be answered mean nothing. If the progress to be made is meaningless. If science for science sake is of no value to their tiny, malformed brains. Even if all of that is true, space is just fucking full of resources. There are compounds found in asteroids that can't be found anywhere on earth. There are exoplanets that rain fucking diamond, carbon arrangements that can't occur naturally on our planet. Asteroids litter our solar system just fucking lousy with raw material begging to be mined. From an economic perspective even the colossal expenditures involved in space flight can just be passed onto consumers as our fears of finite resources fade ever farther away. sure it means we can't be gutted as badly for the resources themselves, but the cost of acquisition would more than cover it if they're really insistent about being an avaricious cuntbag about it.
So next time you read a newsfeed about some senator or wrong-heaed media mouthpiece bitching about how much NASA is costing us and how worthless space programs are, take a minute to write them. Tell them what an ignorant, shortsighted shit-licker they are. I suppose you could be more politic about it than that, but I don't see the point in mincing words with the enemy.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Gygax is My Spirit Animal
I'm late, I know. I'm bad at things and my heart is made of smelly cheese. Rather than self-flagellate over my established failings in punctuality I'm going to ramble about gaming some more.
I've written about my possibly unhealthy obsession with pen and paper gaming before, and none of that has changed. I fucking love tabletop gaming, rolling dice might as well be an aphrodisiac. That said some aspects do run afoul of my pickier sensibilities from time to time. As I've mentioned before, I game for the high degree of customization and adaptability available in a pen and paper situation. I dig the complexity of options and versatility of interactions; which makes it troublesome to me how many systems are trying so hard to become video games. When a system goes from versatile feats based on the development of skills and abilities to a series of powers or maneuvers dependent on level I see a problem. I will admit that its largely an issue of nuance but its a little difference that matters. One option encourages the growth and development of an interesting and at least relatively unique character and the other rewards you for your numbers going up by making your numbers go up.
I'm probably being a bit of a fuddy-duddy about this but I don't really care. I understand that there are perceived market factors in play, the new generations of gamers like a simplified system or whatever. I understand the desire to streamline what can be kind of ridiculously convoluted systems. Seriously, just the licensed books for D&D 3.5 numbers in the high sixties. But the effort to streamline also seems to act as a restrictive measure on the flexibility of the system. While I understand that nobody, especially me, wants to pay a thousand bucks to get a nice, relatively complete set of books; the methods used to clarify the system also demand a higher degree of specificity in the use of power. Classes that once stood as starting points in the development of a character and bases for roleplay options have started shifting into the MMO vernacular. You don't talk about the paladin in terms of her dedication and righteousness, you talk about her capacity as a tank and the control value of her powers. We don't talk about the sorcerer in terms of what his innate connection to magic does to his mind or what his draconic heritage means for his future, we talk about his DPS. I'm not saying the trend in the new systems makes this kind of roleplay impossible, but it is so much easier to ignore the story-potential of a character when more and more the only thing we're given rules for is how that character is equipped to kill shit. I know I'm picking on D&D pretty hard, and they are by no means the only perpetrators, but I feel like they lead the way, I mean D&D has been The Big Name in tabletop for a lot of years.
I feel like an old man yelling at these damn kids for their newfangled power cards and skilltrees, why back in my day you had to pass a tumble check just to get your armor on or whatever. I'm not saying that there aren't any good things to be had from the new breed (13th age has some interesting showings in the mechanics department) but I'm always left wanting more, and not in a good way. Give me some real skills, give me a chance to love my character for more than their ability to one shot a group of mooks, for fucks sake give me more control over my character than I'm liable to find in a Bioware game and we can talk. Until then I can't see myself spending money on, much less running, the new wave. I can't imagine I represent much of a loss in their profits but that's fine, I'm plenty capable of enjoying myself with some 3rd ed D&D or homebrew oWoD. Maybe I'm not alone. Hopefully, I'm not alone. If so, good luck out there. I hope to see you all at the table someday.
I've written about my possibly unhealthy obsession with pen and paper gaming before, and none of that has changed. I fucking love tabletop gaming, rolling dice might as well be an aphrodisiac. That said some aspects do run afoul of my pickier sensibilities from time to time. As I've mentioned before, I game for the high degree of customization and adaptability available in a pen and paper situation. I dig the complexity of options and versatility of interactions; which makes it troublesome to me how many systems are trying so hard to become video games. When a system goes from versatile feats based on the development of skills and abilities to a series of powers or maneuvers dependent on level I see a problem. I will admit that its largely an issue of nuance but its a little difference that matters. One option encourages the growth and development of an interesting and at least relatively unique character and the other rewards you for your numbers going up by making your numbers go up.
I'm probably being a bit of a fuddy-duddy about this but I don't really care. I understand that there are perceived market factors in play, the new generations of gamers like a simplified system or whatever. I understand the desire to streamline what can be kind of ridiculously convoluted systems. Seriously, just the licensed books for D&D 3.5 numbers in the high sixties. But the effort to streamline also seems to act as a restrictive measure on the flexibility of the system. While I understand that nobody, especially me, wants to pay a thousand bucks to get a nice, relatively complete set of books; the methods used to clarify the system also demand a higher degree of specificity in the use of power. Classes that once stood as starting points in the development of a character and bases for roleplay options have started shifting into the MMO vernacular. You don't talk about the paladin in terms of her dedication and righteousness, you talk about her capacity as a tank and the control value of her powers. We don't talk about the sorcerer in terms of what his innate connection to magic does to his mind or what his draconic heritage means for his future, we talk about his DPS. I'm not saying the trend in the new systems makes this kind of roleplay impossible, but it is so much easier to ignore the story-potential of a character when more and more the only thing we're given rules for is how that character is equipped to kill shit. I know I'm picking on D&D pretty hard, and they are by no means the only perpetrators, but I feel like they lead the way, I mean D&D has been The Big Name in tabletop for a lot of years.
I feel like an old man yelling at these damn kids for their newfangled power cards and skilltrees, why back in my day you had to pass a tumble check just to get your armor on or whatever. I'm not saying that there aren't any good things to be had from the new breed (13th age has some interesting showings in the mechanics department) but I'm always left wanting more, and not in a good way. Give me some real skills, give me a chance to love my character for more than their ability to one shot a group of mooks, for fucks sake give me more control over my character than I'm liable to find in a Bioware game and we can talk. Until then I can't see myself spending money on, much less running, the new wave. I can't imagine I represent much of a loss in their profits but that's fine, I'm plenty capable of enjoying myself with some 3rd ed D&D or homebrew oWoD. Maybe I'm not alone. Hopefully, I'm not alone. If so, good luck out there. I hope to see you all at the table someday.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Its Not Stupid, Its Advanced.
I talked about transhumanism a while back with regard to some of the common issues/misconceptions about the community. One of these issues involves the fact that some people will not want to be synthetically (or biologically) improved, resulting in a class system where the unmodified are the natural second class citizens. I touched on this issue in my last post and intentionally limited myself to discussing the lack of malice towards the unmodified. This is not that post.
I appreciate that augmentation is a choice, I approve of it being a choice. A real choice even, as far as I'm concerned capitalism and transhumanism are opposed ideals, so financial restrictions should theoretically be absent. However, I feel that choosing not to modify is essentially an existential failure. Those who remain "natural" wont just be at an absolute disadvantage in nearly every aspect of life, they'll have done it to themselves.
Assuming my hopes and dreams are relatively accepted by the H+ revolution and we do away with scarcity dependent systems, the inequity leveled on the unmodified would be, not just easily remedied, but their own fault. The most common source of hesitation to modify is the fear, for one reason or another, that getting augmented in some way diminishes one's humanity. I've covered that ground before, but if you have some religious or philosophical block that prevents augmentation that's fine, but your choice to not develop with your environment makes you obsolete. I'm not speaking from a position of cruelty, I don't hold any ill will as long as those who have no desire to modify don't try to prevent me from doing it. Its fucking evolution. Voluntary evolution, admittedly, but when the species adapts into something demonstrably superior choosing not to evolve with it demands divergence. The unmodified will not be able to keep up with people who have been upgraded, their ability to contribute, or even effectively interact, with society will disintegrate.
When human upgrading becomes an option it will be the most important, life changing decision anyone will make. It will also be an absolute wall in society. The modified and unmodified will quite rapidly segregate as the abilities of the one group grow beyond the imaginings of the other. I'm not saying that people who choose not to change themselves will or should be culled. I am saying that, past a certain point, co-civilization wont be a viable option, and if the unmodified have a problem with that, the impetus is on them to evolve.
I appreciate that augmentation is a choice, I approve of it being a choice. A real choice even, as far as I'm concerned capitalism and transhumanism are opposed ideals, so financial restrictions should theoretically be absent. However, I feel that choosing not to modify is essentially an existential failure. Those who remain "natural" wont just be at an absolute disadvantage in nearly every aspect of life, they'll have done it to themselves.
Assuming my hopes and dreams are relatively accepted by the H+ revolution and we do away with scarcity dependent systems, the inequity leveled on the unmodified would be, not just easily remedied, but their own fault. The most common source of hesitation to modify is the fear, for one reason or another, that getting augmented in some way diminishes one's humanity. I've covered that ground before, but if you have some religious or philosophical block that prevents augmentation that's fine, but your choice to not develop with your environment makes you obsolete. I'm not speaking from a position of cruelty, I don't hold any ill will as long as those who have no desire to modify don't try to prevent me from doing it. Its fucking evolution. Voluntary evolution, admittedly, but when the species adapts into something demonstrably superior choosing not to evolve with it demands divergence. The unmodified will not be able to keep up with people who have been upgraded, their ability to contribute, or even effectively interact, with society will disintegrate.
When human upgrading becomes an option it will be the most important, life changing decision anyone will make. It will also be an absolute wall in society. The modified and unmodified will quite rapidly segregate as the abilities of the one group grow beyond the imaginings of the other. I'm not saying that people who choose not to change themselves will or should be culled. I am saying that, past a certain point, co-civilization wont be a viable option, and if the unmodified have a problem with that, the impetus is on them to evolve.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Discriminating Tastes
Discrimination ties in to pretty much everything we've been talking about lately, really pretty much every issue society faces on some level or another. Now, we've kinda danced around this as a direct topic for a while, but I'm shit on the dance floor and its time to approach this.
There is a simple exercise anyone can do to determine if they're engaging in this particular variety of asshatery: if you swap the active noun in your argument to the contextually appropriate noun describing you, and the argument then sounds ridiculous, you are being a cunt. A fair example would be, say, refusing to allow heterosexual couples to adopt children. Sound pretty fucking stupid? Yet it somehow slides through when laws are passed denying that right to homosexuals. The only way this makes sense is if you in someway believe that the number of cocks available during child-rearing is a critical factor. For the record if you believe that cocks ought to play any role, other than possibly creation, in a child's life you need to seek some pretty significant help, you fucking pedophile you. The idea of men only making 75 cents to every dollar a woman in the same position makes piss you off? That's because someone's pay being effected by absolutely anything other than performance is fucking discrimination. And no, it doesn't fucking matter that women can get maternity leave, because only allowing women to take time off to be a parent is discrimination. It's also a pretty scathing indictment of the conservative rallying cry for "family values"; but that's a different post entirely.
That rule is essentially a forced empathy hack; actively, if only linguistically, putting you in the position of an opposing party. It requires that for a moment you look beyond the tip of your nose and realize that other people are, indeed, people. Its not terribly difficult and, with even a little reflection, its pretty effective at making valuable points. Unfortunately, a life unexamined is still far easier lived. Discrimination is pervasive because knee-jerk solipsism doesn't require any effort, which is notably less than the any-reflection-at-all required for empathy. Sadly the problem isn't just discrimination, it's the oversensitivity towards discrimination.
A while back there was a bit of a tiff regarding the game Cards Against Humanity, in that a small group of women felt that the game was discriminatory against women due to the creators all being male. They've created an alternate set of cards for the game composed from a feminine perspective, some of which are just as funny as, if not better than, cards in the base game; while others are blithe, smug social commentary on the level of a shitty hashtag. While I will completely admit that CAH can be incredibly offensive (no matter how amusing it may be), it's a game made by a small group of friends who happen to be male. I can't speak to their inclusion policy but I can say that in most friend groups exclusion is less a matter of active internal policy and more a concern of external interest. I don't know them, they could very well be douchebags, hell given the game they made its not even unlikely, but I can say that, without knowing them personally, assuming that they are hostile to women is discrimination. In the same way that assuming a group of women making a game about bras, periods and social justice were hostile to men would be discrimination.
Socially, discrimination is a fraught, nuanced issue affecting everyone in one way or another. Layers upon layers of social programming and ill conceived sub-cultural bullshit force people of varying descriptions into various unpleasant roles, (in the most understated way I can think to say that). But individually all it takes to overcome this disgusting, myopic cockheadedness is just the slightest bit of examination and honesty. We all owe it to ourselves and each other to not be such fucking cunts.
There is a simple exercise anyone can do to determine if they're engaging in this particular variety of asshatery: if you swap the active noun in your argument to the contextually appropriate noun describing you, and the argument then sounds ridiculous, you are being a cunt. A fair example would be, say, refusing to allow heterosexual couples to adopt children. Sound pretty fucking stupid? Yet it somehow slides through when laws are passed denying that right to homosexuals. The only way this makes sense is if you in someway believe that the number of cocks available during child-rearing is a critical factor. For the record if you believe that cocks ought to play any role, other than possibly creation, in a child's life you need to seek some pretty significant help, you fucking pedophile you. The idea of men only making 75 cents to every dollar a woman in the same position makes piss you off? That's because someone's pay being effected by absolutely anything other than performance is fucking discrimination. And no, it doesn't fucking matter that women can get maternity leave, because only allowing women to take time off to be a parent is discrimination. It's also a pretty scathing indictment of the conservative rallying cry for "family values"; but that's a different post entirely.
That rule is essentially a forced empathy hack; actively, if only linguistically, putting you in the position of an opposing party. It requires that for a moment you look beyond the tip of your nose and realize that other people are, indeed, people. Its not terribly difficult and, with even a little reflection, its pretty effective at making valuable points. Unfortunately, a life unexamined is still far easier lived. Discrimination is pervasive because knee-jerk solipsism doesn't require any effort, which is notably less than the any-reflection-at-all required for empathy. Sadly the problem isn't just discrimination, it's the oversensitivity towards discrimination.
A while back there was a bit of a tiff regarding the game Cards Against Humanity, in that a small group of women felt that the game was discriminatory against women due to the creators all being male. They've created an alternate set of cards for the game composed from a feminine perspective, some of which are just as funny as, if not better than, cards in the base game; while others are blithe, smug social commentary on the level of a shitty hashtag. While I will completely admit that CAH can be incredibly offensive (no matter how amusing it may be), it's a game made by a small group of friends who happen to be male. I can't speak to their inclusion policy but I can say that in most friend groups exclusion is less a matter of active internal policy and more a concern of external interest. I don't know them, they could very well be douchebags, hell given the game they made its not even unlikely, but I can say that, without knowing them personally, assuming that they are hostile to women is discrimination. In the same way that assuming a group of women making a game about bras, periods and social justice were hostile to men would be discrimination.
Socially, discrimination is a fraught, nuanced issue affecting everyone in one way or another. Layers upon layers of social programming and ill conceived sub-cultural bullshit force people of varying descriptions into various unpleasant roles, (in the most understated way I can think to say that). But individually all it takes to overcome this disgusting, myopic cockheadedness is just the slightest bit of examination and honesty. We all owe it to ourselves and each other to not be such fucking cunts.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Don't Take the Ride, Burn The Ticket
The more observant among the audience may have noticed that Brian and I are something vaguely approaching movies buffs. We watch movies, by and large we like movies, but recently I feel a trend setting in. I'm talking about the gross squandering of potential. I know that this isn't really a new thing in cinema (I'm looking at you Uwe, your mother and I are very disappointed), but I feel like its getting worse and I'm not entirely sure its unintentional.
The most recent example of this for me was a movie called Banshee Chapter, and without getting too deep into spoiler territory, fuck this movie. The premise is actually good, and riding a bit of a gravy train right now. Its a (more) sinister exploration of the MKUltra experiments done during the cold war (given some of the stuff I've had to search for some my recent posts, bet your ass I'm on a list somewhere), and so it cashes in on the popularity of conspiracy movies lately. Here's the problem; its kinda fucking terrible. Putting aside the fetal dependence on jump-scares, there's a frankly fucking insulting low-rent Hunter S. Thompson character who, despite being one of the main characters, only really exists to justify the presence of Bad Drugs and drop a few poorly represented catchphrases.
On top of that, they can't seem to decide whether they're going for a shitty shaky-cam/pseudo-found footage thing or actually being a movie. There's an implied cameraman in that the camera itself seems to play a role on several occasions, but then again there totally isn't because its never spoken of. The camera behaves as though its being held by someone active in the movie (I wont be calling this a film) but that person never manifests, leaving the whole thing just looking brain-damaged. The casting was pretty terrible, but its essentially about people being mind-controlled so they kinda almost get away with it.
In all they failed their premise, and that's where my issue really comes in. It feels like so many of the terrible parts of this movie where an attempt to garner indie cred that it didn't need if it had just let the story do its thing. This movie is a grand example of what can go wrong when you try hedging your bets, a habit I'm increasingly afraid cinema wont be able to break.
The most recent example of this for me was a movie called Banshee Chapter, and without getting too deep into spoiler territory, fuck this movie. The premise is actually good, and riding a bit of a gravy train right now. Its a (more) sinister exploration of the MKUltra experiments done during the cold war (given some of the stuff I've had to search for some my recent posts, bet your ass I'm on a list somewhere), and so it cashes in on the popularity of conspiracy movies lately. Here's the problem; its kinda fucking terrible. Putting aside the fetal dependence on jump-scares, there's a frankly fucking insulting low-rent Hunter S. Thompson character who, despite being one of the main characters, only really exists to justify the presence of Bad Drugs and drop a few poorly represented catchphrases.
On top of that, they can't seem to decide whether they're going for a shitty shaky-cam/pseudo-found footage thing or actually being a movie. There's an implied cameraman in that the camera itself seems to play a role on several occasions, but then again there totally isn't because its never spoken of. The camera behaves as though its being held by someone active in the movie (I wont be calling this a film) but that person never manifests, leaving the whole thing just looking brain-damaged. The casting was pretty terrible, but its essentially about people being mind-controlled so they kinda almost get away with it.
In all they failed their premise, and that's where my issue really comes in. It feels like so many of the terrible parts of this movie where an attempt to garner indie cred that it didn't need if it had just let the story do its thing. This movie is a grand example of what can go wrong when you try hedging your bets, a habit I'm increasingly afraid cinema wont be able to break.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)