Recent posts by TheBSG on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Product Branding is Stupid

I find this topic incredibly interesting, as rereading the thread allowed me to see it from the completely opposite perspective. I remember that CISCO phone from the 24 episode, and I don’t know who made all of the other nondescript items on the desk at all. I used the idiotic “iPhone” capitalization when referring to a product that I see as standing for its own design, showing I “respect” and value the name of the product because of its quality in design (The OS is a totally different, awful story though.) I guess it’s a big difference between my entrepreneurial brain, and my desire to be left the fuck alone by the advertisements of companies I already patronize. Both of these arguments are completely rational to me, yet entirely opposite eachother.

On the topic of debranding: I think I will eventually get into this, but am avoiding starting now because I feel it’s a rabbit hole that might consume a great deal of my time if I get into it too much. I think debranding is more of a lifestyle choice than it would first seem, and I am unsure of taking on that baggage. I don’t want to find myself a year from now sounding like a self-righteous vegan because I think I’m so cool for painting over brands on my product. I don’t want to build an automatic reaction to branding in my head that makes me functionless and incompatible with society as a whole. Despite being a big internet nerd that likes to argue, I value being communicative and laid back in my personal relationships. I think becoming anti-brand would really change that aspect of my life. If I can one day manage a balance, and perhaps join or start a group oriented towards debranding in order to build more reasonable and effective ethics regarding the idea, I would be more likely to dive in head first. I think painting over that element text would really be a big release, so I will probably do that.

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do we prove what is real and what isn't?

If you think that’s me being passive, you should see my blunt criticism. But alas, I am finding it more and more difficult to respect someone who is so unwilling to cooperate in discussion. It smacks of arrogance and antagonism. It isn’t that he’s wrong, it’s that he’s showing that he isn’t my friend in trying to explain this to me, and is addressing me like so many others on this forum who are not open to criticism, simply because I am unwilling to concede to his representation of my opinion. This is deeply insulting to me, as someone who also agrees that ignorance is not inherently a bad thing.

Interestingly, I find darkbaron’s posts to be directly opposite his claim that he doesn’t think him calling me ignorant was intended to be an insult. The original offending post was essentially that our resulting conversation deconstructed the word reality, because we didn’t know anything about science, but didn’t proceed to prove this point. Only after being called out for attacking people without validation did he decide that there’s no way he could have misinterpreted my statements. Given this vindictive and unvalidated claim against my knowledge about something, and the discarding of my argument without addressing it respectfully, I am not going to be pleasant with him.

This is starting to get way off topic, so I suggest someone else try to address the thread and get things moving again. I’m reserved to no longer take Darkbaron seriously as long as his attitude is so uncompromising and unhelpful.

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do we prove what is real and what isn't?

DarkBaron is wrong because he believes ghosts are real, and I shall ignore his requests to validate my misappropriation of his opinion because I know more than him and everyone else on this forum. My interpretation of people’s arguments are all knowing and all encompassing. If people don’t automatically agree with me, they’re showing clear signs of ignorance that I lack. (You’d be calling me ignorant and not stupid if you then proceeded to correct what you implicated from my post, instead of positioning my argument as absolutely false and then citing a thing you perceived as evidence.)

For once I agree with Jan’s plea for rhetorical consistency, not because it somehow trumps or is even comparable to logic, but because it doesn’t matter whether you’re right or not when you make assumptions and criticize people personally for failing to agree with you. It immediately makes your point inaccessible and antagonizing instead of enlightening. I don’t think we agree because I want to be “right” by DarkBaron’s definition of being right, but because I agree with every single thing you said and didn’t intend for my statements to be interpreted the way you decided to. If someone defines my argument correctly and then devastates it with logic and empiricism, I’m not going to respond with hostility. Calling me ignorant and saying I changed my opinion to validate your asshole remarks is chiding and incredibly insulting.

You probably think you already did this, but when I clarified that my remarks about perception and experience were not intended to apply to scientific empiricism, and were observations about the nature of perspective, you decided I was disagreeing with the nature of science, and showing some overwhelming lack of knowledge about how information is validated and given legitimacy in science. As if that was even the argument I was trying to make, which it was not. If I did make leaps in this direction, your statements are effective limitations to the implication of what I’m saying, and I appreciate it?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Product Branding is Stupid

Right, I know why they do it. I guess I’m asking if that makes it okay or good for us. I think it’s more pervasive than we give credit. I also really hate the LED lights on technology, and I’ve yet to see a good engineering argument for why they persist. I think I also might just be a little anal about it, I just know that I could do without these things and I’d be much happier for it.

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do we prove what is real and what isn't?

I really want to keep liking you, but I’m down to my last drop of patience here. Nothing you’re saying is helpful to me, even if what you’re saying is true. If you’ll identify the thing that isn’t scientifically true, and I agree that what you’re implying I was saying is my actual argument, and then you can show me that this assumption I was making is inaccurate and inconsistent with modern science, I will absolutely and unabashedly acknowledge my ignorance on that particular topic. Until then, your unrelenting presuppositions are rude, unhelpful, and make it increasingly difficult to take you seriously.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Product Branding is Stupid

I think it is interesting that there is a dual functionality of a brand, and that it is opposite of the intention of the product itself. That is, the logo on my TV lowers the value of the product to me, but raises its value to the marketing department because it appeals to my friends. I would argue however that a world without obsessive branding would contain far more of the kind of awareness that we know actually sells products more than branding does: Word of mouth. “Wow BSG, that’s a sick TV! Where did you get it?” instead of the passive experience of the word element. I already see the argument that using both of these is a good blanketing technique, but I would retaliate with the tried and true, and more recently popular understanding that too much awareness becomes white noise.

I would argue and would want to test if there is a overall loss of quality in some products, where the act of branding becomes more effective for others. That is, I would think that my TV doesn’t need a brand because people will ask me about it if they’re interested and wont imply the quality based on the brand, but no one cares about my opinion of coke, and my implicit drinking it implies that I appreciate the product and brand over its similar comparisons.

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do we prove what is real and what isn't?

Seriously, I want you to call me scientifically illiterate while directly quoting the part where I demonstrated this. I already agreed that I may have used the wrong terminology, but you’re still putting words in my mouth. I never disagreed or suggested the uncertainty of any particular scientific argument, and wasn’t really even talking about empiricism at all. I said that reality is what we call consistent, and this was one of your major contentions, but your analysis of the point showed we didn’t disagree. I was talking about perception and experience, but please call me illiterate in an unrelated topic again.

It’s almost as if people can’t clarify their argument with you. Not to mention if we were even talking about particular scientific claims, I don’t know what level of understanding is necessary to meet the beholden level of understanding that you yourself are blessed with. I don’t need to have a PhD understand of the inner workings of a scientific concept to both agree with it, in the case of microwave radiation, and suggest that there is knowledge out there that may one day inform the scientific understandings we have today, which is different than my argument that the nature of perception is inherently uncertain.

Topic: Serious Discussion / When Will The USA Move On From 9/11?

I was more trying to make a funny than arguing with you, you’re right we pretty much agree. I just don’t like that people react so violently to being asked to be rational.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Product Branding is Stupid

Originally posted by Spaghedeity:

Most people wouldn’t be able to tell the difference, and the two products wouldn’t even be competitors.

Even without brands, they’d still be competitors. They are made by two companies competing for market share.

But they’re only competing because they’re making the same thing. When we give people blind taste tests who say they love a particular brand, we discover that people’s tastes are more subjective to the particular quality and not brand. If you put water in a fancy bottle, people will drink more than out of a glass. As already mentioned, it is a deception that they are distinguished.

That is a bit off topic though, as I was far more interested in discussing the aesthetic of branding more so than the idea of branding itself. A consumable product like coke is probably a lot less offensively branded than the branding of my wheelchair, or the television, or another more permanent object.

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do we prove what is real and what isn't?

Originally posted by DarkBaron:

No, I’ve done it in thousands of tones both on the Internet and IRL. Bottom line is: people don’t like being told they don’t know something – even when they don’t. And if you don’t like it, feel free to pick up a book. It’s like the girl who has sex with half the school (particularly the opposite sex half), then cries to her mom when someone calls her a slut.

People don’t like being told they don’t know something, and that bars them from a completely unrelated discussion about the certainty of knowledge. The extent of my knowledge of the universe does not change the truth of the uncertainty of knowledge that you yourself have acknowledged. I don’t know what specific statement you’re referring to that proves some overarching lack of understanding of some concept. Please identify very specifically what particular fact about our universe I have offended by suggesting that knowledge we do not yet have can inform the knowledge we currently have. Try doing it without insulting me and instead link to a piece of information that will supposedly enlighten me. I’m more than willing to admit when I’m wrong, I’m just not going to admit when someone else misrepresents my argument as wrong.

So to simplify this argument, I need you to provide:
1. What argument I have made that shows a lack of some knowledge.
2. An example of the knowledge I lack, and how this pertains to my argument regarding the lack of importance that unverifiable claims have despite relying on the fact that we can’t know that thing isn’t true.
3. How you’re saying anything different than what I’m saying.

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do we prove what is real and what isn't?

But you are indicating I don’t know something about a field I do know about and using words like “outclassed,” and you’re making a false attributions in suggesting that my argument is one about those topics in the first place. I am not saying that anything we know scientifically is false. I am saying that what we don’t know may change what we do know, and that reality lives within the margins of our confident uncertainty. Nothing in that statement has anything to do with our knowledge of background microwaves proving the age of the universe and debunking the not-claims that it was made a few thousand years ago and flooded by a sky daddy. I am not trying to credit not-claims by drawing attention to the uncertainty of the things we claim to know. I am simply saying that the uncertainty of things is what fuels my empirical scrutiny in itself, and that’s pretty much exactly what you’ve said. How has anything that I said offend these simple statements?

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do we prove what is real and what isn't?

I know you are but what am I.

So you’re basically repeating my own arguments back to me, but I’m the one who’s wrong. I wasn’t asking that question because I believe it is a scientifically valid argument. I was saying that there isn’t a way to know whether that is true or not, so it is indistinguishable from reality. That is, God might as well not be if he is immeasurable. As you said, an unfalsifiable claim is one that is moot. Kind of like exactly what I said in my first point.

You called our deconstruction of reality, which was no different than your very own acknowledgement of the mootness of unfalsifiable claims to be indication of our lacking in scientific knowledge, which is both a false attribution, and insulting. I think the only part where we disagree, as is evident by your use of gnostic atheism, is that unfalsifiable claims can’t be true. That doesn’t mean that believing in them is rational, as this is such a fickle point of contention, but if we did measure the simulation or God some day, the agnostic atheist would have made the most rational point.

The fact that an unknowable thing could be true is the very reason people have faith and believe in bullshit is because we cannot speak to the propensity of truth. The thing that people who believe in these things fail to do is realize that this means any particularly immeasurable claim is in competition with any other claim, and that this invalidates any possible belief or argument for those claims. It STILL doesn’t change that we cannot know if that claim is true or not, and never will. If we discover that it is true because the answer was just obscured, anyone who said it couldn’t be true would have been making the same false attribution as the person who claimed it was true. Moot does not mean false.

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do we prove what is real and what isn't?

What? Please explain how the implications of the background microwaves undoubtedly prove that there could not be a simulation of all of the exact same things that we have measured? Furthermore, I almost didn’t reply because of your condescension. I am quite aware of our understandings of certain astronomical concepts, but even if I weren’t, your attitude wouldn’t ever make anyone else learn about it besides you and I. I am kind of sickened to see your attitude, considering we’ve gotten along thus far just fine. I am arguing for nothing but the uncertainty of knowledge, and I really don’t think you disagree. I am not saying the things we know are false, I am saying the things we know might not be what we think they are, but it isn’t going to destroy what we already know, and you just said that very same thing about scientific scrutiny. To me it seems like you’re just being defensive, and it’s not conducive to discussion at all and you should probably stop posting if you are looking for a fight. I don’t have to communicate with someone who is so rude, and I won’t.

And you just made an edit that’s literally saying what I’m trying to say more effectively because you know the language better than myself. Fascinating how instead of trying to understand my argument, you attacked me for agreeing with you but not knowing how to. Great on you, now no one cares. As you said, I used the word false to imply a thing isn’t as we assumed, and you misinterpreted as me saying that what we know can be absolutely false. I don’t believe that, so yeah, miscommunication. Don’t call me stupid for it, okay?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Product Branding is Stupid

I am not sure if you’re arguing in favor of brands or against them, because I think therein lies the truth. Most people wouldn’t be able to tell the difference, and the two products wouldn’t even be competitors. Heck, I even get boxes the product comes in being branded and loud. I just don’t want an advertisement in my house for a product I already bought.

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do we prove what is real and what isn't?

I think you’re reading things the way you’d like to, and aren’t addressing the argument I’m making. I’ve said the exact same things you’re saying to people who use uncertainty to imply that we can’t know anything because we don’t know everything. That argument doesn’t address what this question posits, though.

If we’re in the matrix, all of the measurements you’re talking about are “real.” They’re measurements of our experience. The semantic use of the term “real” is important. I am arguing that the definition of “artificial” truth being opposite of reality is a misnomer. I am not saying that we cannot know what is “real,” I am saying that the difference between real and artificial is the very knowledge you’re discussing. The sussing out of what “is,” and I am simply using the word consistent to define that which we know to be true. The questions is whether what we know to be true is all there is to know. We most certainly know that what we don’t know is greater than what we know. This shouldn’t be mistaken for abusing the uncertainty principle to validate things which just aren’t, it’s just an interesting question about the limitation of the definition of reality.

I understand it’s a fine line to cross, but I am not pointing at what we don’t know and saying that “therein lies the truth.” I am saying that what we know is as good as truth, even if it turns out to be false some day. As long as we are sure that what we know is consistent with what is. I don’t mean consistent as in predictable. I mean self evident, or not without cause. If the laws of physics are not what they appear to be as we know of them today because they’re a simulation we all exist inside of, or something else someone would call “artificial,” I would argue that the measurements were absolutely REAL.

Topic: Serious Discussion / When Will The USA Move On From 9/11?

Yes because rationally reacting to something implies a person completely lacks empathy. I understand why people reacted the way they did, but I don’t think that’s an excuse to ignore those of us who are trying to compel people to do something that they won’t regret later. I’m almost like a sociopath.

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do we prove what is real and what isn't?

The deleted post demonstrates a severe lack of humility. We can criticize people’s lackings all day or you can bring something substantial to the table and address people’s opinions respectfully and adequately. “Your deconstructionist argument isn’t exactly accurate because it makes the false assumption that x y z” not “God you guys don’t know all of the things I do.” If you’ve got a superior opinion it should stand on its own two feet instead of look down from an ivory tower.

Not to mention, semantics may be a practice in futility, it does provide perspective to certainty and is surely the origin of many people’s very skepticism and scientific inquiry. By questioning our assumptions we’re at least doing more than casting stones.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Product Branding is Stupid

I’m not talking about brands themselves, I’m talking about the act of branding.

Topic: Serious Discussion / When Will The USA Move On From 9/11?

But it didn’t actually show that they had a lot of power. We’ve overblown the situation with our emotional reactions so much that we are dangerously close to reacting the way Israel acts when a bomb blows up: By validating whatever means we choose to use in retaliation. We engender the physical act of flying two planes into large skyscrapers with causing political, civil, and financial unrest. We give the attackers more power than they actually have by reacting irrationally (which translates to economic collapse) and validating it with the travesty of being attacked. Victimization is a self-destructive and dangerous reaction to aggression, as anyone who works with abused spouses or children can attest to. It empowers the attacker and glorifies their success.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Product Branding is Stupid

I am incredibly intolerant of branding as it consists of today, and would pay more for products that function like brand names without being disgustingly labeled. We are inundated with the exact same logos and words over and over again, and their meaning becomes empty. I have a no-name TV, yet the word “ELEMENT” that is slapped immediately below the screen has been sitting in my subconscious for 5 years now. For what reason? I already bought your TV. I don’t need another one to match. This is a piece of furniture for all intents and purposes, and you don’t see the name of my couch branded across the cushions. Imagine a dining table with the word “IKEA­™” at each placemat?

I am also frustrated that I am habitually made to say the name of a product in order to refer to it. Instead of saying “The console” when talking about the x-box, I say “The X-box” as if it is somehow distinguished as anything more than a console. I like that I have a computer, not a Dell. I have a toothbrush, not a sonic. I have a cell phone, not an iPhone. Speaking of which…

Take the iPhone for instance: It is unmistakable and recognizable immediately with its beveled edge and letterbox face. Competitors do themselves a major disservice when depicting a nondescript round-cornered one button phone aside their new line of undistinguished products, since we all know the apple product, yet we are incredibly unfamiliar with various droid model shapes and sizes. The product doesn’t need the giant apple logo plastered on the back (that is often covered by cases) because its branding is in its design, not the permanent picture and words plastered to the back.

I was thinking about solutions for advertising that isn’t circumventable, and thought about why we dislike integrated marketing. When I first saw integrated marketing, I was giving the awful show 24 a try and CISCO’s phone was given a closeup shot showing a giant logo plastered on the face. In contrast, the rest of the futuristic terrorist task force desk was discreet with elegant black or white leading lines. If the CISCO phone was distinguished and well designed, I would be attracted to it and would prefer to have it sitting on my desk over a different phone, especially the ugly one depicted in the episode. Furthermore, as a repeat user of CISCO technology, I know their phone systems are actually quite superior, but this is both impossible to adequately “integrate” into a program, while the appearance of the object is. Why then would you choose to convey the name of the product by sacrificing the design?

I fear that my displeasure with branding is because of my awareness of products, and that the vast majority of individuals are not going to know the name of a product unless it is written on it. By calling products by their generic name, people lose brand identity, which has become a big thing in marketing. If it makes people money, they’ll keep doing it. There ARE products that are overpriced because of their lack of branding, but these products are aimed at such a highly select group of rich people that they’re somewhat out of league with my income.

What do you guys think? Do you mind brands? Am I overthinking it? Is there really no psychological difference between calling it the x-box versus console? Is it just more specific, or are we kind of being forced into brand identity and awareness? Does branding really hurt anything? Isn’t it just a way to get your name out there and familiarized so shoppers remember you when they are looking for a particular product but have no other brand awareness? Personally, I think brand ubiquity and design quality trump brand awareness, and this is especially true when it comes to integrated advertising.

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do we prove what is real and what isn't?

That last sentence is absolutely spot on, and should have been the conclusion I was reaching for in my post.

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do we prove what is real and what isn't?

I don’t think that iMachine’s quote is that ignorance is bliss. Instead I think he implies that the term “real” breaks down when you ask this question. My experiences are real, just as you’ve identified. The only way that this isn’t indifferent from being real is if what you think is happening isn’t actually what is happening. For example, the consequences and experiences of dreams are not consistent or measurable, while reality is. This isn’t to say our measurements are accurate and thus an indication of what is, but the fact that things behave in consistent ways means that “real” just means “consistent.”

Crazy people are crazy not because they might be tapping into some deeper understanding of our universe, but in fact because they are not acknowledging the objective experiences we are all having. They want to use language to explain something while the thing they’re explaining directly offends the idea that language is a consistent and repeatable way to express ideas. To say all things aren’t real is to say the word real is artificial in itself, and the place which you make these observations is an obscuration in itself. If that were true, reality is a misnomer.

So at best, we’re using a word without meaning, and at worst, we’re defining the word for ourselves to indicate suggested objectivity. In either case, it’s pretty irrelevant. Essentially, a thing that is absolutely unknowable is functionally irrelevant. You would act the same way in either instance, and your perception would not change.

Topic: Serious Discussion / When Will The USA Move On From 9/11?

Trains blow up every year in London and France that kill twice as many people as were killed in the world trade towers. The display of knocking down our financial buildings was symbolic and threatening. It intended to spread fear, unrest, and financial collapse. They succeeded, and now we celebrate that day every year while ignoring the thousands that die in natural disasters each year. We wage wars to liberate and retaliate while poverty and political unrest surge in our own nation. We talk about patriotism and security in the same breath without a hint of irony. 9/11 will be remembered forever because it was the most successfully, low cost, well timed, effective terrorist attack, not because of its death toll or supposed indication of vulnerability. 9/11 was devastating because of what it made people think, not because of what it actually meant.

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Department of Defense employee getting some thoughts out.

It’s refreshing to hear someone with some sense is working on a terrorist task force. I think the word “terrorist” is a stupid word indicative of the narrow-mindedness that you described in the original post. “Terrorist” is a word for people who disagree with you and wont fight you face to face. It’s about as useful as the word “enemy.” I like more recent attempts to communicate with the Taliban and empathize with them, as it has caused several individuals to leave the regime. We’re talking about starving, poor off people who read about Jerry Fallwell as if he represents all of American ideals. In the same way I’ve overheard people talking about “towelhead” and “terrorists” when referring to Muslims and middle-easterners, these people think the same of us. And it isn’t that they’re ignorant, or poorly informed, either. These people have the internet, and translator stations to watch US broadcasts. The way some of us despise TV for its extreme banality, these regimes feel as though America represents the immoral corruption of mortals.

What’s horrible is that in many circles in America, the above paragraph would be mistaken as Taliban apologetics, and I’d be called a socialist hippie or worse a ter’rist.

On the topic of airport security: I couldn’t possibly agree with you more. None of the loud measures that have been taken do anything to protect individuals, and the actually effective measures that could be taken are ignored. Improve the quality of security, and stop hiring joe-blow-community-college to rub people down and rifle through their bags.

Topic: Off-topic / The Official No Fap Thread

I’m not making moral judgements, I’m just making fun of him. Big difference. ;)