130 replies to this topic

[Italian Ufo]

I think that this a growing concern. Governments seem to think they are entitled to censor and control us.

 

One may not agree with piracy, but to censor the internet, the one free domain? Outrageous! And yet there is nothing we can do.

 

I hope that one day we can get rid of the slimy politicians and replace them with advanced AI.

 

I know that if VR was censored, I would be furious.

 

My only concern is what will happen of physical human relations? our current streets will become empty. people will mostly interact in a virtual enviroment.

[FutureOfToday]

I think if people are having constant brutal rape sex with children multiple times a day in VR, there should be some concern for their mental state and it should be restricted.

[Ewan]

I do find the censorship on the TV kind of funny. Anyone remember the Janet Jackson fiasco? It's funny not all societies are like that though. I remember the first time I went to Japan seeing a topless women on a sign in the street, I was like WHAT THE HELL?!!? Then again Japan have their own weird censorship laws. 

[Rkw]

With a little luck we will. Even if that means using all our money to build our own little island run by unbiased AI.

Hell maybe if a smart enough AI is built it can easily out debate any current corrupt politician and call them out on their bullshit so perfectly that there could be absolutely no shadow of a doubt that we would be better off letting it/them run the show.

 

In my opinion abusing a child sexually or otherwise is one of the most disgusting things you can do, however in the confines of a virtual world I say go for it, whatever floats your boat. To prosecute someone for chasing a twisted fantasy would be like arresting someone for using their imagination.

So long as no damage is done to any real life form, I say it's fair game.

[Alric]

I don't think VR is going to change the overall trend that is already happening, though it might speed things up. Things are changing now, where we are leveling things out and making everything more equal for everyone. I think you are over reacting a little on the feminist stuff, and most feminist are still just seeking equality, it is just some on the extremes that are always pushing crazy stuff. Though it seems like there are bigger extreme every where we look. Just look at politics, or religion. You can't judge entire groups by the most visible extreme element of them.

 

Many people get the idea that sexism is like a pendulum and that before society used to be really sexist towards woman, but in the push for equality it swung all the way over and now there is a ton of sexism against men, but that isn't really how it works. Most of the sexist things towards men today are things that was sexist towards woman in the past, but times are changing and a little change in context changes everything.

 

Kind of like how paying for dates is the mans job because he is in charge and the woman is totally helpless and should  be entirely dependent on the man for everything. Kind of like your pet dog, you pay for all its food  but it gives you a lot of affection. Who gets the better deal? Probably the dog but it is clear who the boss is. However today most woman have money and more freedom and more say so that changes things a great deal.

 

It is sexist towards men now but it isn't like woman pushed equality until they got more power. We simply followed old traditions without thinking and the context of the situation changed. That is where the internet really changes things, because today we think more and more about why we do stuff or why we don't do stuff and people are starting to question everything. 

[Rkw]

I think if people are having constant brutal rape sex with children multiple times a day in VR, there should be some concern for their mental state and it should be restricted.

Haha, I agree I'd question just how stable that person is, or why they are so caught up in these; very specific, malicious fantasies.

But until they commit an atrocity in real life we're talking minority report stuff, punishing them for the possibility that they'll commit a crime.

 

I just asked my girlfriend this question and she said that child porn etc should be censored, we talked and basically she's saying that because the IDEA of someone fucking a kid disgusts her, even though nobody is being harmed. I'd be as bold as to compare this to a homophobe being against the idea of two men having sex, even though nobody is being harmed, especially not them.

 

Funnily enough she had no problems with the idea of a Gears of War VR game, I quote "That's different".

[Colonel O'Neil]

Kind of like how paying for dates is the mans job because he is in charge and the woman is totally helpless and should  be entirely dependent on the man for everything. Kind of like your pet dog, you pay for all its food  but it gives you a lot of affection. Who gets the better deal? Probably the dog but it is clear who the boss is. However today most woman have money and more freedom and more say so that changes things a great deal.

 

Most women in the developed world. But in the developing world they are still treated in an unacceptable manner. What I want is for the women's rights activists to concentrate on those groups.

 

When I talk about feminists, I AM referring to the extremists. To normal activists i refer to them as Womens rights activists, who are as you say for the most part seeking equality.

 

But they are all concentrating on the wrong women, in the wrong place.

 

The situation women find themselves in is now equal to man in the West. If the President of the USA is forced to apologize for calling Kamala Harris good looking, you cant tell me women dont have it good.

 

You're comment about men paying for dates makes no sense. You say that more and more women are making more money, yet the prevailing cultural attitude is that men should still pay .

 

Looking at society, you cant possibly say that a double standard is not in place.

 

An example is with airliners. A child traveling alone is not allowed to sit next to a male stranger, but sitting next to a female is seen as alright. Why? Because apparently a female is safer than a male. Something that is clearly not true. You get nasty men and women. If that is not discrimination, then I dont know what is. It's like saying that children can't sit next to Black people, because statistically they commit more crimes. That would be considered racist, and rightly so. Yet not for men apparently.

 

Society places women, (and is doing so increasingly) on a pedestal higher than men. When you turn on the news, and something bad has happened, e.g. some terrorists have destroyed a village in Afghanistan, you always hear the women and children were mercilessly killed.

 

Well hang on...what about the innocent men? The fathers, brothers and sons? Do they not count. Newsflash, women fight in the armed services. Stereotyping them as weak and in need of protection does neither gender any good.

 

There are arguments that men can protect themselves better, but that's crap. Often the aggressors are males themselves, and usually carry guns.

 

And men go along with this, because to speak out, would be seen as unmanly or sexist.

 

VR will change this, and almost certainly lead to a decline in special treatment given to women. Hot beautiful women wont be unattainable anymore, so there wont be a reason to treat them any differently, than you would a normal person. And things can go on from there...

 

Your post was the first that disagreed with me, and thanks for that. Its refreshing to have a debate 

 

[stuffed_leader]

Feminism is dying already, its being killed by the independent woman. Combine that with the disappearance of economy, and society would have finished feminism even without VR. 

[Colonel O'Neil]

Feminism is dying already, its being killed by the independent woman. Combine that with the disappearance of economy, and society would have finished feminism even without VR. 

 

Feminists have always been a fringe group. Most women don't like them. But they do have a disproportionately large influence on the media and in shaping public opinion

 

Lets move on from feminism and talk about money. You say that the economy will disappear? Thats a bold statement, and one i find interesting. Can you elaborate?

 

I have made my views on the disappearance of money already, but talking about the economy as a whole is a fundamentally greater step. I think that it is VR that will ultimately put the pressure on money going, but I still think some sort of economy will remain.

[Ru1138]

Feminism is dying already, its being killed by the independent woman. Combine that with the disappearance of economy, and society would have finished feminism even without VR. 

I think that depends on how you defin "feminism". The hardcore "womyn" type were fringe from the beginning and probably are dying out. Regular ones? Not so much.

[stuffed_leader]

The economy as we know it which is speculation based on limited resources. With space and genetic overhauling, resources become abundant eliminating the need for speculation. Many wont need jobs, and many jobs become obsolete with the education singularity. The education singularity eliminates inequality because everyone has the same knowledge. The loss of speculation eliminates money period, because our currency is entirely based off of speculation. 

 

This "new equality" eliminates the need for feminism and many other equality groups. 

Edited by stuffed_leader, 13 April 2013 - 12:08 AM.

[Colonel O'Neil]

feminism is hardly dying friend. read about these weirdos:

 

http://www.guardian....ops-of-feminism

[stuffed_leader]

I  think that depends on how you defin "feminism".

The hardcore "womyn" type were fringe from the beginning and probably are dying out. Regular ones? Not so much.

 

Define regular ones. A lot of women who are independent hate the feminist due to their definitions of women empowerment. Saying women who are sucesfull "in spite of their gender" pisses a lot self sufficient women off. 

Edited by stuffed_leader, 12 April 2013 - 11:57 PM.

[stuffed_leader]

feminism is hardly dying friend. read about these weirdos:

 

http://www.guardian....ops-of-feminism

 

The klan has marches too. I've met many women and none of them are feminist or subservient, just in between. 

Edited by stuffed_leader, 12 April 2013 - 11:56 PM.

[Alric]

There is a double standard for many things, though my point is that you need to look back at the history of where those ideas came from. You can never really understand things, unless you look at the history.  Those things don't exist because woman are on a higher pedestal, they exist because woman used to far below men. No one said, "Woman have a special place in society, lets treat them better." They said, woman are below men and need to be taken care of and watched and men need to be in charge, and then as the times changed people forget why they were following old traditions. There is no questions that some of those old traditions work out in the women's favor in the modern environment, but some of them are also liabilities. The benefits they did gain is mostly by accident though, and no one is putting them ahead of men, which is why some are likely still upset.

 

There has been a great deal of progress over the years in getting more quality for people, though I wouldn't say everyone is now equal and we should move on to the next subject. Most of the blatant sexist things are now gone and that is a very good thing.

 

Half the population is women, yet less than 20% of congress are woman. Only a third of the supreme court are women. Only like a third of US cabinet positions under the president are women. There are 56 US governors and only 5 are woman. Obviously you wouldn't expect it to be even split all the way around but there is clearly a pattern of woman being largely under represented in positions of authority, in pretty much every area.

Edited by Alric, 13 April 2013 - 07:39 AM.

[kjaggard]

See now that I have an issue with. Trying to get more of an "underrepresented" group into a field. Cats are underrepresented in neural surgery, so we're going to mandate that more brain surgery be done by cats. Here is a thought: How about we allocate the positions of skilled professionals to people who show the best development of the skills required. If women or martians or any other group is not demonstrating those skills to the same levels, than you are welcome to ask about and seek resolution as to how to see more women and martians develop the skills to take part in those fields. But lets not pretend that it makes sense to do it in some egalitarian ideal of the same number from every group.

 

There seems to be this bizarre pokemon mentality that we have to collect them all. If there is a need for people with programing skill, make gender or race not a factor in the decision, don't run all the way to the other side of the floor and pretend forcing more of other groups is a solution if you are just ending up ditching capable and skilled programers for politically correct cultural cross sections of population... some of whom know how to use a computer.

 

Sometimes I think that it would be so much easier if everything were done via message board with abstract avatars and usernames. Nobody knows the race ethnic group or gender they are dealing with. There is a task to be done and the person who can do the task for the right cost in the right time frame does it. If you compiled the data at the end you'd likely find the data skews one way or the other often, but it's not because not enough chances are being offered, it's simply because those are the right people for the job. The best allocation of human resources.

 

Maybe instead of saying we need to change that there are not more of this group in this field the better approach is to ask why aren't the members of the group achieving the same numbers as other. It may be they don't value that field, or maybe the way that culture unconsciously enforces expectation of social values means only somebody who has values off center of their culture end up in the chosen field. At that point it should be asked if the groups involved mind, and how to bring the performance levels on par with the rest if they so desire.

 

But that's not really possible. We tend to hold an image of what a company manager looks like, so when it comes time for us to pick a manager Odds do not favor Shaniqua JoHanson over Markus Smith. Not because Shaniqua must be opposed, but simply because cultural programming tells us that Markus Smith is closest to that culturlly programed idea of what a Boss figure is.

[Colonel O'Neil]

See now that I have an issue with. Trying to get more of an "underrepresented" group into a field. Cats are underrepresented in neural surgery, so we're going to mandate that more brain surgery be done by cats. Here is a thought: How about we allocate the positions of skilled professionals to people who show the best development of the skills required. If women or martians or any other group is not demonstrating those skills to the same levels, than you are welcome to ask about and seek resolution as to how to see more women and martians develop the skills to take part in those fields. But lets not pretend that it makes sense to do it in some egalitarian ideal of the same number from every group.

 

There seems to be this bizarre pokemon mentality that we have to collect them all. If there is a need for people with programing skill, make gender or race not a factor in the decision, don't run all the way to the other side of the floor and pretend forcing more of other groups is a solution if you are just ending up ditching capable and skilled programers for politically correct cultural cross sections of population... some of whom know how to use a computer.

 

Sometimes I think that it would be so much easier if everything were done via message board with abstract avatars and usernames. Nobody knows the race ethnic group or gender they are dealing with. There is a task to be done and the person who can do the task for the right cost in the right time frame does it. If you compiled the data at the end you'd likely find the data skews one way or the other often, but it's not because not enough chances are being offered, it's simply because those are the right people for the job. The best allocation of human resources.

 

Maybe instead of saying we need to change that there are not more of this group in this field the better approach is to ask why aren't the members of the group achieving the same numbers as other. It may be they don't value that field, or maybe the way that culture unconsciously enforces expectation of social values means only somebody who has values off center of their culture end up in the chosen field. At that point it should be asked if the groups involved mind, and how to bring the performance levels on par with the rest if they so desire.

 

But that's not really possible. We tend to hold an image of what a company manager looks like, so when it comes time for us to pick a manager Odds do not favor Shaniqua JoHanson over Markus Smith. Not because Shaniqua must be opposed, but simply because cultural programming tells us that Markus Smith is closest to that culturlly programed idea of what a Boss figure is.

 

I agree with this. I annoys me when a person is given a job just because of his ethnicity or gender. I also think it should be more based on competence.

 

Your point about avatars is interesting, and I think it is something that we wlll have in the future, when VR comes into play.

[Rkw]

Completely agree with the above points.

If white people were especially bad or simply outclassed at a certain job by the rest of the world, I wouldn't view it as discrimination to have none or few white people doing that job, it would be sensible.

[Colonel O'Neil]

Unfortunately Rkw most the world doesn't think like this. They look at jobs or positions within society, look at the statistics and make comments without thinking things through.

 

Really skin color is just an aesthetic difference, and should have no bearing  on anything really. The fact that it does is a sad reflection on society.

[Rkw]

I can see issues where people ASSUME someone can't do the job because of a stereotype linked to them, but when it comes to down to straight forward facts

Ie. Are they qualified academically or physically to do this job? How can there be any debate at all?

Edited by Rkw, 13 April 2013 - 05:06 PM.