Recent posts by TheBSG on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The psychology of the forum.

TBH you guys only have yourselves to blame by suggesting every single new user on these forums is Vanny. That’s literally the only reason he is still playing this sad clown game is your attention.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Have you ever seen a pretty homeless girl..

http://www.kongregate.com/forums/9-serious-discussion/topics/496862-what-do-you-think-the-impact-would-be-if-serious-discussion-were-to-receive-more-regulars-from-off-topic

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Topic of the day: News Medias

When I say boring, I don’t mean “They really aught to throw some more murder rape death stories in there.” but that there’s no real throughline for an hour of content, as they’ll switch gears sometimes at the most random time. I imagine it’s really easy to lose listeners between stories, or even within a story as they meander on a topic. It just isn’t suited to the way we consume media these days. I still like it, but I tend to just find the stories that are relevant to me and look them up later in written format. Yes, I want informative, well formatted, and contextualized news. Difficult, perhaps even impossible? Maybe, but that idealism used to be the foundation of journalism. Today it’s a lot more bleak.

I will investigate your news sites, as I’m only familiar with 3 of them.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Topic of the day: News Medias

NPR is pretty awesome, I agree, and absolutely forgot to mention them. They can be kind of boring, though. I mentioned 60 Minutes being decent, but besides that, yes. The Daily Show does more research than CNN and other television networks on political news.

I’m more interested in breaking up the big media conglomerates in general, and not really suggesting government control. They break monopoly laws as is, and they’re entirely tax sheltered. They DO NOT report on their own bullshit.

I would love a link to a news website that’s good. I’m guessing our standards are different or I’m just bad at finding things now adays, but I am STARVED for a decent news site.

I couldn’t disagree with you more about individual reporting. It’s the epitome of bad news. I’m sure you can pick and choose individuals who are responsible newspeople, but there’s little to nothing holding them to that standard.

I feel like I insulted you by calling your opinion uninformed. I apologize. My point was that I’m not the only one saying this, and the professors who are saddened by the situation are hardly uninformed. I really kind of gave up on news so your characterization of my curmudgeoning isn’t false. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy so much as an issue of production. It’s easier to make money doing what they do now.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Topic of the day: News Medias

Hilariously, I tried to do research on taxes paid by large media conglomerates, but I have yet to find an article on all of the major news sites that understands how actual accounting works, and instead it’s just 7 different articles rehashing the same expense reports without a bit of accounting knowledge behind it. No experts interviewed to explain the data because they’d explain that IRS data for corporations is private and the article would require a ton of research to actually make the statements it’s making. They’re just generic “tax law is broken” articles that happen to mention media conglomerates.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Topic of the day: News Medias

I don’t disagree with those points, except that specific articles on a given subject tend to be incredibly under researched. You have to seek out an article that is well researched, cites its sources, and provides true context. Most of the time someone links a scholarly article in defense of their opinion, it’s the most tenuous, shallow examination of the subject, and is most often opinion based.

I’ve been pretty active arguing online since I was very young, and so was the internet. It was easier then to find a scholarly article when things were less interconnected than it is today. The concept of a primary or secondary source is lost on modern articles that cite other articles. News media has themselves to blame for that. You keep talking about popular opinion, but I’m talking about both my direct experiences and the opinions of journalism professors.

Public Relations has become the thing to get a degree in if you’re informed and write well. Science journalism has become non existent. Scientific Literacy is at an all time low, and the last time I saw any piece about scientific advances at all was regarding the Ebola scare. When politicians would try to leverage public relations in the past, news anchors would calmly correct and mitigate the outrage.

Were there articles online explaining that ebola isn’t that big of a deal and that it had to do more with election funding than anything else? Probably. Were any major news outlets or professionals that inform people every single day saying this? No. There has been a shift in responsibility and expectations placed on our news, and I believe it’s every bit our fault as it is big media’s fault. I disbelieve that you cannot make interesting television out of actual things happening without sensation or pandering.

Besides 60 minutes, there are no dignified, philosophically responsible journalists on American public or private television. Morning news is paid advertising and entertainment, network news is opinions, arguing, and political sides, and special reports amount to feel good pieces or are so after-the-fact that it doesn’t matter. Print media is dead, and online media is an echo chamber that panders to clickbait. There is no prominent voice of journalism in America. There’s articles written by nerds in the topic who don’t have the writing merits to be interesting, or the colleagues to have a comprehensive publication that would elevate their informed writing to the masses.

The Daily Show team is clearly liberally biased, is a comedy show, and they still do better research than almost everyone on the tube. It’s sad and laughable and the complete lack of response from major news outlets (not just Fox) means they don’t care about journalism. They care about advertisers and ratings. This just wasn’t the case in the past, it’s a new thing. Al Jazeera, a foreign news network saw the vacuum in the market and set up shop here. They can’t get advertisers because they’re afraid Americans wont trust an Arab news network… because the other networks have so poorly represented the rest of the world that it’s painful. It’s not like other countries have this problem with shit news, either. There’s a vested interest in keeping Americans dumb and buying stupid shit and it goes far beyond lining the pockets of the people owning them.

This isn’t more of the same, this is an unprecedented level of stupid being sold at the lowest possible price and it’s not the only way and we should demand the art of journalism from those who claim to be journalists. Considering our tax dollars absolutely gives them breaks, we can demand that much. Personally, I think it should be illegal for a media conglomerate to own a news station. But that’d take breaking up some of the largest tax-free corporations in our country, and that’d take awareness, and that’d take a media that isn’t shit. Catch 22.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Topic of the day: News Medias

I’m not sure what to say to your uninformed opinion, petes. I’m not talking about high profile scandals, I’m talking about every day news. There’s a lack of context, research, or coverage when it comes to every level of news. It’s being talked about rampantly in the industry. The cost/profit model has shifted so much that it just isn’t easy to make money researching dens topics that aren’t sexy. No one wants to watch a report on housing prices and what effects them unless they can point at something everyone can get behind hating. It’s easier to write a top10 list about GMOs than piss off everyone by highlighting the real problem with our big corporate food network and while insulting the hippie’s lack of scientific literacy. Who wants to create a political divide in your viewers by reporting on profound levels of racism and corruption behind the drug wars when they can cover elections with candidates that can take the brunt. At one point we watched the news because it was the thing to do while eating dinner, now people read facebook posts on their phone and have the attention spans smaller than their devices. News today is what is interesting and immediate, not what is important and useful.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Topic of the day: News Medias

I think our media is severely starved for creativity and quality. Gone are the days of responsible broadcasters who took pride in informing. Solving this problem is difficult though, as media must be independent, the survival of a national media conglomerate depends on private dollars and thus maximum view count, and our certification-based education system makes genuine, well investigated, responsible reporting cost and education prohibitive. It’s easier to make a website that rewrites articles or reframes a report, publication, or event than it is to develop comprehensive journalism that communicates in interesting and accessible ways and still make money and give students incentive to join the industry. I’d be a pretty good journalist myself, but nothing about the field is even romantic anymore, and I can make a lot more money arguing with a much smaller lot of the population about things they’re already informed about instead of trying to earnestly inform a nation about things they don’t care about. Modern Journalism is a thankless service job that gets dominated by the least qualified individuals for the job.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Topic of the day: lookup

I don’t understand why it has to be a format of any kind, why not just post a new thread when you feel like? Topic of the week implies we’ll only talk about it for a week. Plus its repetitive.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Topic of the Day: Manimals

I think we have a responsibility to foster the only other life in the universe that we know about given our position as the most ubiquitous and capable species on this planet. I believe in Kant’s Categorical Imperative, that we should behave in a way as though everyone would behave that way. Were there advanced Aliens with the means to preserve our species, I would hope they act in ways that respects our growth and autonomy.

With that, though, are some considerations. I do believe that we as scientifically minded individuals believe that topics and morals and ideas exist in a vacuum, and that we can insulate species as they are today without effecting them. We must accept that no relationship to an ecosystem is without us, and so species and our world system will change if they are to survive. The co-evolution of mankind and other species is both something we can impact, but must accept is by its nature greater than ourselves.

Doing away with unrealistic and irrelevant distinctions like “natural” and “organic” and “harm free” is a good step. Recognizing that consumption of organic matter includes the manipulation and impact on organized creatures instead of pretending that eating non-sentient life somehow mitigates our impact is useful. Embracing those relationships and developing our culture in ways that respects and enriches the ecosystems that we rely upon is far more useful.

I think that the word “preserve” itself loses some meaning when we take this integrated approach, as it doesn’t much matter if a plant is “native” to a location or not, so much that it isn’t so disruptive of the environment that other species cannot cope. We will still inevitably lose species and genetic data, but I believe that if we make goals and stick to them, that impact can be beneficial instead of tragic.

In the same way that many of the surgeries I had as a child were not ideal, but saved my life, I see no problem with altering the genetics or environment of a species in order to preserve its lineage. Controlled evolution could’ve given the Kiwi a natural defense against predators, or encouraged a larger breed, or they could be domesticated and given a place at our side. Would they still be the Kiwis of yesteryear? No, but their genetic line will be preserved, and the variations and uniqueness that would arise despite our control would be unique and may impact our own evolution. Or we could try to avoid going to their island or pretend laws keep poachers away and let them die off as the fat, slow, defenseless animal that probably would’ve been destroyed by some other domineering predator.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / All WYMYN are UNDER ATTACK from the PATRIARCHY'S newest attempt at CONTROLLING WYMYN

There’s really tenuous and early evidence that mankind’s evolution was in relation to alcohol consumption and that intoxication in general may be a way to further the plasticity of the brain and strengthen the heart muscles so that individuals could survive the stresses that old age puts on the heart. Essentially, if you survived into your 30s drinking, the benefits would outweigh the negatives and provide mankind who was living longer and longer due to less migration resilience against the issues of tissue deconstruction. This may actually be true for the liver as well, although our excess of drinking kind of ruins that benefit. Early man, however, wouldn’t have had that much access to fermented anything, and so the amount of alcohol would’ve been much more manageable and would actually encourage the breakdown and rebuilding of certain fatty tissues.

Again, this is really early research, and is really only a theory at this point. The reason I know about it is there was an article that explained how scientists doing this research have preferred private publications because they’re trying to avoid pop-science articles about pickling your liver to live longer. My point is that, if they did discover benefits to drinking small amounts, the variability of bodies, people’s opinions, and the dangers of making a poor judgement regarding that information makes it basically negligible on a wide scale.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / All WYMYN are UNDER ATTACK from the PATRIARCHY'S newest attempt at CONTROLLING WYMYN

It goes without saying that this is low hanging fruit, and that I have directly told someone I cared about to not do something absolutely dumb with their body that’s unhealthy for them or the offspring they don’t want to turn out malformed, and I am not making a feminist argument to a woman’s body, but I do want to make one thing clear: The reason why drinking while pregnant might as well be banned is because people aren’t responsible enough to understand that light drinking isn’t a big deal or might even be somewhat beneficial. It’s an unnecessary risk for most people, and knowing yourself used to be a thing you just had to do. Now we measure ourselves against others and a different kind of intelligence is required.

If personal care doctors told the exact truth to patients, people would die more regularly. Your understanding of your health, and just in general, most things, is because you aren’t aware enough to handle the reasonable information. That isn’t even meant to be an insult, it’s just that information about shit you don’t know about can be dangerous in a democratic, and highly interconnected world. A voter and a viewer have access to the ability to form an opinion without the responsibility to know enough about the thing to actually have a legitimate opinion.

I am not at all advocating or endorsing drinking while pregnant, in fact I am saying just the opposite. Most of us are not responsible enough to take that on, and our egotistical world means that we’re brainwashed to believe we can all handle anything or we’re weak and need rules. Neither is wholly true. Some of us need one more than the other, but we’re the worst ones at recognizing which, when about ourselves.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / #hyperthetical: 300

Buddhist monks lie and take serious analgesics and prepare their bodies with ointments and special diets before performing stunts like that. The famous monk who burned himself alive in the 60s almost necessarily severed his own spinal chord in order to withstand the pain, as he was determined to die for the cause. In the video you showed, the monk’s clothes were what was on fire, and I’d bet pretty confidently that his face and arms were covered in a flame retardant, as flesh burns rather quickly and he was able to move freely. I don’t doubt that their training is what allows them to proceed with these acts, and I don’t doubt that all of the drugs in the world don’t make it easy to not react, but I think Buddhism gets a really strange reverence for what amounts to serious parlor tricks where someone dies in the end.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Questioning the Nature of Your Embodiment

Yeah, I imagine lack of embodiment would happen far later. At first, people would have connections on the body they have now. Since fully functioning, power-friendly limbs and other attachments have more bottlenecks, I see being able to control a piece of machinery happening far sooner and with more ubiquity than depersonalized body rigs. In that scenario, we’d be able to control whatever we can interface with, and I’m not sure it’d be much different than interfacing with our hands as we do now. Not that it wouldn’t be interesting and unique, I just think that the novelty would wear off and only a few very specific incidences would reveal the disruptive nature of the technology.

But to humor the question, having experienced life in a wheelchair and from a much lower angle than everyone else, I think I’d just enjoy experiencing a normal body. I want to rock climb, skateboard, wingsuit, and free-run. I want to drive a sports car. I was born with an adventuring, self-challenge mentality, and it’s been frustrating that the only thing I can really do is exercise.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Why can’t I drop some racist shit and then boost? This place is dumb yo. I’m a professional 15-yr-old-with-an-opinion, I don’t need dis.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / (Obama,Bush,isis and False flag wars)There is more shit in the world than we ever thought.

I miss CROW.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

I like how this thread started out. “Let’s not talk about anyone’s policies or values, let’s just discuss the fact that the genitals on one of the candidates is different from the genitals of the candidates we’ve elected a lot.”

United States is funny in that we will elect the same two families for two decades and still brag about not being an oligarchy. Clinton is the lesser of evils, as the Democratic party tends to be, but I am really not thrilled about Clinton, either. She’s historically capable in ways that terrify me, and incapable in ways that make me roll my eyes. She’s a master politician and that’s one of the only ways she got to where she is as a woman. Unfortunately it makes her an expert at being a totalitarian, save the kids, line her pockets while smiling Liberal.

On the other hand, if we can get a decent senate, and she includes Bernie Sanders in her cabinet, perhaps some progressive politics can actually get enacted by a progressive president. While Obama has achieved far more than a lot of presidents have, he still kind of chose his battle and went down with his ship instead of hard-lining his policies. Clinton will be far better at dealing with the right, but only because she’s a corporate liberal and both she and the republicans are dedicated to the dollar before their party.

Personally, as always, I wish we had a proper socially minded liberal and a fiscally prudent conservative, whoever is more needed at the time gets elected, and the other VPs in order to act as a counterbalance. But that’s pretending presidents just want to raise GDP and standards of living while maintaining passable relations and trade agreements with the rest of the world.

We are in desperate need of an ACTUAL conservative to go through America’s books as well as the books of the top 100 corporations and do some spring cleaning. The amount of waste, endorsements, and unregulated spending done by our government is astronomical, higher than a lot of modern countries. This corruption is bipartisan. These problems are fiscal and logic based problems. We barely use science or experts anymore to make policies, either. The antique “boards” and “special committee” system drives the lobbying bullshit that corrupts our government. The problem is that all of our republicans are corporate dogs that want to change our government’s policies to “encourage free market capitalism” and other lofty, heady ideas, while failing to deliver or serve American people in any tangible or real ways.

We need social security, but we need it to be sustainable. We benefit economically from the stability of our military force until it starts costing more to maintain than the rest of the budget combined. Then we’re spending more than we’re making, and we’re shipping loads of money to private industries with no regulations, accountability, or track record of efficiency. We need a strong education system that fuels our economy without burdening its students with debt. We are behind all of the other first world nations because both our economy is obliterated by corporate conservatives while progressives try to enact revolutionary policies without the coffers to do so, further spiraling our nation into debt and lowering our competitive advantage over more industrious nations.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / American Conservatism versus the world.

This thread has zero room for growth or discussion.

But then, most discussions that whittle human history and political systems down to team sports and vague opinions about groups of people that you don’t like are fruitless.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can you be a woman just by saying you're one?

Luckily the number of biological differences between male and female humans is so small that it’s physically attainable. Becoming a tree is a bit beyond our technology right now, but if we honestly had the ability to somehow induce our own sentience into an inanimate object, you don’t think people would do it? Would you ostracize them?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can you be a woman just by saying you're one?

I was born with brown hair. If I want red hair, I can change my hair color to red. Some people have incredibly natural looking dye jobs. Some people are born with insanely unique and fake looking hair color. Some people get completely unnatural hair colors.

If I colored my hair red, I would have red hair. If I wore fake nails and a wig and makeup and spoke in a higher register and valued traditionally feminine things, I’d be in every way a female as every woman you meet is a female to you. A lot of what we consider feminine is an act in itself, and we just refuse to acknowledge it as a society. Gender has changed significantly in history. Gender is different all over the world. Gender is different in the Animal kingdom. We are an entirely plastic-brained, socialized creatures with various gender and family roles.

The reason so many of you have trouble with this has to do with your rigid and single minded ideas about your sexuality and what you’re attracted to. Exposing the fact that much of what we base attraction on is prescribed (more likely due to our naive, romance-inspired ideas of relationships that is a relatively contemporary refactoring of a political/practical procedure in the past.) might be incredibly disorienting. Maybe you prefer the prescriptions? Just don’t force them on anyone else because of your lack of desire to develop, explore, or define your own gender and sexual identities and how they might differ from the role you’ve been expected to fulfill.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can you be a woman just by saying you're one?

See? These things seem obvious and not at all the modernist “inventing” of roles at all. I think we had a seriously fucked up 120-1000 years of gender roles in the western world that just don’t match the actual realistic variety of sexual, gender, and identity traits and roles there truly are. Not in a fluffy lovey dovey everyone-is-different kind of way, but in tangible, irrefutable ways. Trans kids are pretty obviously trans from a very young age, and it’s distinctly, both statistically and non-scientifically reportedly different than tomboys/girls. Being a sporty lady and not being allowed to be “lady-like” is another problem with our prescriptive gender roles, the same gender roles that restrict a trans kid from being the gender they identify as even if they portray desirable traits of the opposite gender. I think most cultures learn to create roles in society for the types that inevitably arise from the society’s current major roles. It’s weird to me when people try to pretend that these things don’t exist.

Another thing is that you should always be respectful in changes in people’s identity. We all kind of live on the presumption that people can change, even if we claim we don’t believe that. We strive to be better, we set goals that are different than our previous goals, we grow and change and don’t recognize our former selves. The idea that a person has to “pick” or cannot explore certain aspects of themselves is terrifying to me. The idea that we make people take their identities so seriously terrifies me, too. Exploring who you are as a person is a never ending process. The steps in that process aren’t illegitimate, even if they’re temporary or offputting to you. While these sound like platitudes, they’re just reality. You will change in your life. The opinion is that people have the room to grow and be their true selves if you don’t shame them. This applies to how you treat yourself, as well.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can you be a woman just by saying you're one?

Not specifically, but I do find our modern bathroom practices to be bizarre. None of it makes any sense at all even a little bit. Not the hygiene, the “privacy,” gendering, the queuing, the water use, none of it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can you be a woman just by saying you're one?

Something about “shitlord” made me cough while drinking coffee, thank you.

How does anyone know what’s in anyone’s pants? Why does anyone care? Gender roles are clearly invented and change way more than we acknowledge. People seem to get upset when you put titles to what people really are. I think the more people you know who are different from you or people you know, the more you realize identity itself is wildly varied, yet lots of people have bizarre similarities. The codification of these traits seems trivial and people should really put them into perspective. I mean seriously, even in your traditional bible belt town, there’s butch women and feminine men and non-sexual people and there’s people who are really into clowns and people who wear leather and have sex with dolls. We learn to tolerate eachother and one of the ways we can respect eachother is by using identity terms that addresses the person who knows themselves the most.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

beauval guessed pretty much what my initial assumption was. The correct answer is slightly different, but the logic is pretty much on track exactly.

E: E 100%
E gets 100%.

DE: D 0% E 100%
If D doesn’t give E 100%, E will throw D overboard.

CDE: C 99% D 1% E 0%
If C gives D 1% (or >0%, something), he will vote in favor of C’s 99% to avoid giving E 100% and having %0.

BCDE: B 97% C 0% D 2% E 1%
If B gives E 1% and D 2%, more than they’d have in a 3 person scenario if B is thrown over, so B collects 97% and C can vote however they want.

ABCDE: A 97% B 0% C 1% D 0% E 2%
If A gives C 1% and E 2%, they’d have more than if A is thrown over.

I apologize that I didn’t use the coins. Googling the problem after not having done it in a while, I find a lot of people use at least 50% for a slightly different answer, and that coins are used as a means of avoiding less than and greater than concepts in the bargaining.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

The eldest pirate is not that stupid.