Experience as a game

[FlippyD]

If this topic idea sucks then that's fine, but the symposium has been kind of dead lately so here's an attempt at jumpstarting things a bit.

I have a lot of time on my hand, and sometimes that time is playing games, sometimes it's making games and sometimes it's thinking. Thinking about games, thinking about sweater meat, thinking about philosophy and thinking about boobs. Recently I've been thinking about life as a game and what that means I suppose (also diamond hard tits behind a wet tshit.)

It seems to me that humans require an idea of rules, of society and a culture they can inhabit out of necessity. I wonder if people where left on their own, in the wild without any concept of society and rules would they make their own? Is it because we're afraid of chaos? I'm not sure because I personally enjoy interacting with society. I like going into groups of people I don't know and learning how they function, and starting up new friendships and bonds with new rules and regulations. I like going into a group of friends and seeing if I can subtlety change things. One time when I was working for a printer most people there where really into Michael Moore and being liberal and playing shitty MMOs like Star Wars Online, but by the time I left I had turned them on to more republican thought and WoW.

I like controlling people, and I admit that makes me something of an evil little bastard, but I don't care.

Everyone follows a bunch of unspoken rules from an invisible rulebook for every group. And even those who seem to be anti-society or against authoritarian control and limits seems to be functioning by their own creed and rules.

I guess the important part of this discussion will be the disagreement I have with a friend of mine. She sees me, and thinks I'm fake. She sees me and thinks that I have some secret part of me that I show no one else, but that's not true. I think we all have multiple personas, and those of us that function the best socially may change ourselves to fit with a group, but in the end we're always affected by that group. And if we appear as something long enough then we become that something. Furthermore she feels all people that shop at Hot Topic or Aeropostale or the Gap are shallow because they prescribe to the lifestyle those stores cater too, but I don't buy that. It feels to me, that if they were shallow or sell outs it'd be because they're consciously going against what they themselves feel to fit in, when most of those kids just like My Chemical Romance and The Nightmare Before Christmas. It's something they connect with, they're having fun and making friends. In fact, the snarky kids on the side who throw judgements about what's shallow or sell-outish seem to be doing so because they don't understand that part of society I guess. They don't understand why the game exists and think that they are fit to survey these people. They're as full of shit as any emo kid who pretends to be deep, or any punk kid who thinks they're better for embracing extreme leftism.

It seems all these people prescribe to lifestyles that don't care about the rules of the game, or that pretend they don't exist in some faux-90s Disney movie morality drama where the most important thing is to "be yourself", which means dress and act like the pretentious unpopular kids.

 

[nohmaan]

I'm not sure exactly what part of this you wanted up for discussion- but societal roles play an important part in the foundation of our life.  People willingly mesh to "scenes" and "lifestyles" as an attempt to fit in, or merely because they think it's cool.  That's just an inherent human trait.  But the type of trend jumping you mention really only occurs in people of younger ages- well before you can really consider a person's personality completely developed.  Being a part of groups or trends are something that just naturally occurs, it provides comfort to individuals who are seeking a niche, and in a comfortable niche that person will continue to develop more fluidly.

There are people who just do not function within society however, for whatever reason.  I'd say that the groups of kids who collect and pass criticism on the actions of others (i.e. shopping at Hot Topic or Banana Republic) don't fit into that category though- it's just another social designation.  In fact, let's say your friend critics people who wear goth attire- then there is typically a counter-judgment occurring from the goth persons perspective.  I think that people just naturally pass criticism to things they don't get, or that are different from themselves.

 

[___]

I like how you contrast "liberal" with "republican" - it's good to know that tired old lie is still working on the kids. It sounds to me like you and your friend are either a teenagers or need to stop acting like them. You're still thinking of people in terms of social cliques that don't actually exist outside the classroom. When you graduate to adulthood and a professional career you will find that people don't fall into "popular kids" and "unpopular kids", and at least during my time in high school the people I met had a diverse set of interests that went far beyond what clothing store they shopped at, and belonged to social groups only in the most superficial sense. I've never actually been to a place where everyone was the walking stereotype people are portrayed as on television.

Also "punk" has nothing to do with "extreme leftism" - at least not the classic punk movement. They were anti-statist and anti-authoritarian, whereas "extreme leftist" tends to mean communist/socialist, a near-totalitarian point of view where the state has complete ownership of property and absolute authority. Socio-anarchists may not believe in a capitalist system but they also don't believe in a state that regulates production, so what their philosophy really boils down to is free market exchange, in a system where they voluntarily choose to exchange goods for services and vice versa rather than using a monetary system, when you think about it. I don't know, maybe the people you think of as "punks" are kids embracing communism for the sake of being contrarian but that's not a very well-thought-out philosophy, or maybe you've been conditioned by your family and peers to think "liberalism = socialism" and "conservative = Republican/capitalist" and consider anyone who disagrees with popular "conservative" ideology an extreme leftist. It's really hard to say when you apply vague and probably poorly understood political buzz words to broad categories of people.

I'm going to move this topic to general discussion; if you want to refine it and repost, I suggest:

1. State a clear and concise topic for debate.
2. State your argument, supplying supporting evidence and a clear conclusion, without equivocating, riding the fence or otherwise being unclear about your stance. If you prefer, play the devil's advocate and present an opposing point of view, or even present both sides of the argument as you see it, just be clear about what the actual controversy is.
3. Check your vocabulary - it wasn't that difficult to figure out what you meant to say, but try to avoid using words you don't know very well as it interferes with your point.

 

[FlippyD]

I might make a new thread if I'm not lazy, but a few things to clear up.

As I said, these were co-workers. I was in high school, but the majority of them where in their 30s and 40s.

And though I use common cliques as an example, my thought process still holds water. People don't outwardly label themselves as one group of another mostly because there's no reason to and they do have multiple interests, but they still form bonds with groups of people with a set of invisible rules understood by all of them. For example in my close group of friends we'll openly make homosexual jokes even though 1/4th of us are gay. We also make black jokes and jew jokes when only 3 of us aren't jewish or black. There's another group of friends I hang out with that don't do that kind of thing.

I guess, most people don't fall into simple stereotypes as you say, but it's easier to explain my point to use them. I know one group of people who are into gaming, and one group into comics and animation, but they're both for all intents and purposes nerds, or at least some of them see themselves as such. Some don't, some are only partially interested in the same things, but for the sake of clarity it's easier to say "groups like X follow societal rules Y," even if they don't all bow down to hardcore stereotypes.

Also, I'm the same age as you

Also, the link to your dA site is misspelled

I don't think you've met too many punk kids lately eh? The punk scene around where I live has become more humanitarian/liberalish. Also, the irony of which you proclaim my possible narrow-minded nature in labels in which you turn around and make assumptions about me and my family and peers is intriguing. I'll admit my post sucked, mostly musing and a string of thought sort of thing merely meant to stimulate some life in this board, but I have the distinct feeling I've touched a nerve somewhere.

 

[___]

Not so much, I'm just feeling for some thread topic here, you were very vague so I'm firing off some suppositions to see which ones stick. I do think the use of stereotypes when discussing behavior is self-defeating though; you can't say "I want to know more about why people behave the way they do" and then presuppose behaviors on arbitrary groups of people or broad social categories.

To clarify on anarchy: Anarchists object to the state, and other authoritarian institutions, largely because of the state's use of violence for coercion and social control. They're radically opposed to the use or existence of military or state sponsored violence in general, so activists will often be involved in anti-war and war-relief movements. This is liberalism in the sense of liberty or classical liberalism - a right wing philosophy - not in the sense of social justice - i.e. redistributionism, a left wing philosophy. The two don't often have much to do with each-other, since you can't have much liberty if the state gets to take away and redistribute your belongings and dictate your moral values at gunpoint, and you can't have much redistribution if the state has no power to take from the people or tell them how to behave.

The problem here is that "liberalism" has been redefined, especially in the U.S. and Britain, to mean collectivist and socially progressive, and conservative has been defined to mean individualist and socially conservative (although it's really a thin mask disguising extreme authoritarianism and nationalism, by way of pairing social conservative ideals with state enforcement). Actually have you seen the political compass? It's a pretty good way of visualizing this whole thing with fairly solid methodology.

Anyway every time I try to move the topic the browser bugs out, so it's staying, have at it.

 

[FlippyD]

Just because modern punk kids misunderstand anarchist philosophy and leftism doesn't mean I do. Politically they've become more humanitarian and live mostly on the east coast, and since these are kids and not actual people who grew up with punk's philosophy as it happened they rarely have the "do it yourself" attitude that defines punk (more than anarchism in my opinion.) Collectively most punks will tell you they don't like authority, however not all of them believe in no authority at all, some of them simply don't like the current setup and so believe in the idea of a progressive left-wing politics. Technically the republican approach to less centralized government and more state run systems is what they're probably want in the long run, however as you've said there's a common misconception of what each party represents in America.

To reiterate, I know what anarchism, punk, republican, democrat and marxism mean, it's the people I'm talking about that get it confused. As I said in my first post, there are punk kids who feel better than everyone else because of their liberal affiliation, I mentioned that after talking about emo kids who feel they have deeper more intense and real emotions than other people, it's obviously a farce.

I wasn't asking the question "why" so much as asking what other people felt about it. I thought I asked that question at the end of the post, but I didn't looking at it again. Besides, I don't think a simple "why" question has ever made any really worthwhile symposium threads as much as a "what do you think" question. Someone asks "why is X as such?" and then people spew out their opinions mixed with a bit of basic tidbits of why people feel such a way (aka: why do people hate abortions? because of religious beliefs). However, asking what makes it more open and encourages people to think. Why supposes there's already an answer, what implies there is none.

So what do people feel about society as a game? Has anyone else thought of groups of people linked not by common interest but by the rules of engagement surrounding those interests? And are there people who feel they're different persons around others, and which of these persons do they think is the real them, if any?

 

[___]

Collectively most punks will tell you they don't like authority, however not all of them believe in no authority at all, some of them simply don't like the current setup and so believe in the idea of a progressive left-wing politics. Technically the republican approach to less centralized government and more state run systems is what they're probably want in the long run, however as you've said there's a common misconception of what each party represents in America.

The problem is that is *not* what the Republican party represents in practice, they represent extremely statist social conservative views and corporate welfare which are as anti-punk as possible (so is carpetbagging and otherwise claiming to have one political approach when practicing the complete opposite). Anti-corporatism is a typical vein in punk/anarchy, but a rational anarchist must conclude that with little or no government there is no one to stop a corporation forming if it wants to (and nothing stopping you from not trading with it, of course). It is a common fallacy amongst general anti-establishment types to embrace leftism (see Noam Chomsky) but I don't think that's rational. What a punk probably wants is more like Libertarianism - minimal government, no government-mandated morality, and very little economic interference. Otherwise, market-anarchy encompasses social anarchy by definition, as collectivism is perfectly allowable in market-anarchy, and market anarchists, libertarians and classic punks, even those with marxist veins, have way more in common with eachother than they do with either branch of the Republicrats.

To reiterate, I know what anarchism, punk, republican, democrat and marxism mean, it's the people I'm talking about that get it confused. As I said in my first post, there are punk kids who feel better than everyone else because of their liberal affiliation, I mentioned that after talking about emo kids who feel they have deeper more intense and real emotions than other people, it's obviously a farce.

I don't know about emo kids, didn't grow up around them - in the 80s and 90s we had GOTHS, not well-to-do whiny trysexuals taking too much X. Emos are like the sad suburban offspring of Ravers and Goths, imo, and I have no useful opinions on them. If punk kids consider themselves more enlightened or moral because they have an informed view of the world, flawed though it may be, I think they're more entitled to be self-righteous than the person who ferverently supports the social & political establishment "because it's right". Really you'll see that in any group of people with strong beliefs, so you can like or dislike it but you can't limit it to anti-establishment groups.

So what do people feel about society as a game? Has anyone else thought of groups of people linked not by common interest but by the rules of engagement surrounding those interests? And are there people who feel they're different persons around others, and which of these persons do they think is the real them, if any?

I'm not sure how that relates to gaming exactly. If what you're getting at is that people choose their social circles based on commonality in manners rather than taste I can see how that is sometimes true. Until I moved out of state and ended up friendless (!) my friends included two ex-bodybuilders, a cop, a sort of small-town dilettante and would-be filmmaker, a couple potheads, an engineer, and a few others all with diverse interests, but we did all have similar outlooks and ways of dealing with other people.

 

[FlippyD]

It's not gaming but the fact that I see it as a game. To me a game is defined by rules and a goal. In social groups I see people following various rules of behavior and their own goals of what they want to get out of the group (community, friendship, etc.) Comparing such things to games might sound trite and distant, but I'm being serious here in that perhaps our infatuation with games (from chess to football to video gaming) is because we as humans structure our lives around rules to follow and expectations for following those rules.

"If I give girls flowers they'll like me."
"If I don't go to church mother will be upset."
"If I come into work early every day the bosses will favor me."

We fashion our behavior based on expectations, expectations we have from memory.

However I was also commenting on how people choose friends based on those who think the same way you think, failing that common interests of course. And there are some folks who will make friends by changing the way they think to match what another group thinks. To this my friend suggests it's selling out or being fake or what have you, which it can be, but I think any state of mind is based around your company, so the previous mindset was no more real or fake than the last one, and that the mutability of the human mind facilitates this.

 

[___]

Yeah as social creatures we are built to adapt to a group or find a group we can adapt to. Part of the process of emotional maturation is learning what your personal needs are and how to best satisfy them; most people your friend would call 'sell-outs' don't know what they want out of life in more than the vaguest sense, but one thing they clearly want is acceptance by the majority, so in a sense they're just pursuing their own needs. On the contrary I'd consider a sell-out more like a carpetbagger, a person who consciously contradicts his own feelings in order to manipulate and exploit an opposing group.

 

[stillzero]

One time when I was working for a printer most people there where really into Michael Moore and being liberal and playing shitty MMOs like Star Wars Online, but by the time I left I had turned them on to more republican thought and WoW.

lol

there are 2 kinds of people in the world, the liberals who play shitty MMOs and the republicans who play WoW. i think you just figured out all the society and human thought man. youre a genius.

Folks this is an example how not to post in the symposium. ~Mega Lenin

 

[Dissonance]

One time when I was working for a printer most people there where really into Michael Moore and being liberal and playing shitty MMOs like Star Wars Online, but by the time I left I had turned them on to more republican thought and WoW.

lol

there are 2 kinds of people in the world, the liberals who play shitty MMOs and the republicans who play WoW. i think you just figured out all the society and human thought man. youre a genius.

Folks this is an example how not to post in the symposium. ~Mega Lenin

frsgaag

are you serious

Also wat@this entire thread.

Some people need social acceptance and some don't, those that do may undertake less extreme or more extreme actions to gain that acceptance based on how powerful the need is.  Not hard!

 

[FlippyD]

Y'know, that was kinda the theme of a thread you made not long ago ~_~;;