Green Requiem

the title of this blog is deceptive. it makes me think of Haraway, and her ideas about cyborgs, that technology will just become an extension of the human. and in a way it already has. who doesn't walk around with a mobile phone in their hand texting while walking, ringing while sitting and eating or taking photographs/videos while sight seeing? i know i do it, and i observe nearly every other person do it too, particularly if they are under the age of 25.

but no, this blog is about video gaming. this is an area that fascinates me, and i can only imagine the future to be completely amazing, unbound by any restraints technologically. but there is more to computer and video gaming than just the graphics and story.

i walked into a computer/video game store the other day, and it happened to be a sale. i noticed that, yes, while a lot of the people who were buying games were young males, there were a surprising amount of females, and older people buying games too. and not just the 'girly' games, but serious gamers games.
more and more games are now available to be played online, some exclusively so. there are orders in place for games that won't come out for another month or two.

but, my predictions about video games aren't just that the graphics will become even more amazing, and that the stories will become even more fantastical and graphic. no, rather, i wonder if computer games can be used in education purposes (more than they are now) (for example, the Age of Empires games are strategy games that have campaigns based around real life, historic events), or how people will no longer have to leave their computer to be able to visually interact with people (think second life). that the mouse (in the right hand) will always be in action.
so in a way, i am commenting on Haraway's cyborg idea that i mentioned earlier.

i would hope that in the future there would be more studies into not just violence of video games, or gender based studies. but how video games help/hinder the creativity and imagination of people. how it can help with education. how it helps/hinders hand eye co-ordination and reflexes, and also how gaming effects social development.


this is something i look forward to.

what is a diaspora i hear you say!

the dictionary definition of diaspora mainly has to do with the cultural separation of a group of people from their original homeland (here). and while that is a good and valid definition, the word has now been applied to a lot more things than just that.
there are many online diaspora, in fact, the internet has really furthered the whole notion of a diaspora, with the introduction of being able to chat and communicate with people from all parts of the world. chat rooms and message forums have been around since the start of the public internet in the mid 90's, and nowadays there are message forums for nearly everything.

so what is a diaspora exactly, in the broad sense of the term? simply a group of people, a community who share a common linkage, or interest, who are geographically separated.

i am a part of several of them (in the form of message forums), including one for a web comic, one a friends, and one called Gush.

but, the question then stands. is Gush (or those other online message forums) actually diaspora? i personally think it is, as we are a group of people who are linked by a common interest, and we are geographically separated...

i read an article about online religious diaspora, and the author wrote "People are going online to get information about, discuss, and argue about religious beliefs and practices, as well as to share their religious feelings and concerns, post prayer requests, chat, and even conduct and participate in online religious rituals. (http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue3/helland.html)."

Is ePorn worse than crack? well... is it?

in some ways, the answer would be yes, and in some ways the answer would be no.
in a lot of ways, they are two different forms of addiction. one is a physical addiction, where the physical responses of the body crave the drug. the other is mainly a psychological addiction where the mind causes the body to crave the thing.

however, a physical addiction is a lot easier to be 'cured of' than that of a psychological addiction, because you can get the drug out of your system, but to get the addiction out of your mind requires a lot more time and effort on the addicted persons behalf.

while there is an understanding in society that cocaine is worse than porn, simply because it is illegal, and you are seen to get more addicted to it, does not mean that internet porn is any better.
in fact, it could almost be seen as worse because it is more easy to access. "

The internet is a perfect drug delivery system because you are anonymous, aroused and have role models for these behaviors," Layden said. "To have drugs pumped into your house 24/7, free, and children know how to use it better than grown-ups know how to use it -- it's a perfect delivery system if we want to have a whole generation of young addicts who will never have the drug out of their mind" (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/11/65772).

i don't think that it should be discussed as to which is worse than the other, as both crack and porn are addictive substances. and so in that way, both are as bad as each other. porn is more easy to access, and harder to break from the habit from. where as crack can have disastrous consequences from what could be done while in the altered state.

it is not a good thing to be mastered by anything. or controlled by anyone. so in that way, all addictions are bad. self control is something to strive for.

James Gardner defines extremism as being a dogmatic intolerance (whether this is expressed through violent means), an incline towards an inflexible obedience towards an accepted authority. and also being available to be shaped by a common ideology, and a sense of group unity.

this is a good general definition of extremism, as it allows most things to be addressed. it also doesn't (like a lot of other dictionary definitions of extremism) point directly and mainly at politics.

i think a part of extremism, is the fact that people do not question what they are being told, or what they believe. or understand how it effects the rest of society. they do not have an informed point of view.
but, to seek to get rid of all extremists, one i don't think it could be possible, and two, it is important for people to express their views about things they are interested in, or passionate about. a part of democracy is the right to be entitled to having our own opinions and views about things and not being forced to believe what everyone else does.

however, there are common norms and values that are shared by the majority of society. one of the different perspectives in sociology is functionalism. and a part of their discussions on deviance is explaining that some deviance is a good and healthy part of society. (deviance being the breaking of the shared consensus of norms and values). some deviance strengthens the societies understanding on their norms and values, because they are being challenged. of course, only some levels of deviance are seen as normal.

i myself, use small forms of rocking the boat. small forms of extremist behaviour. (something which i see as perhaps a pretty important part of a democratic society to be able to challenge the norms and values of that society). i think it is good to be challenged to understand each others, and our own beliefs and thoughts about the world. if that is a reaction against an extremist group (and, trust me, there are a few out there. particularly on the internet) then that group is causing some good.
to be able to be informed is a good thing. however, one of the above characteristics of the Gardener definition is an inflexible obedience towards an authority. where the people are not encouraged to think for themselves...

after reading the article by David Kupelian, i was a little shocked and offended about his scathing report on the evils of youth culture.
it is true that he is mainly talking about american youth culture, but i feel that it has been generalised to be all western youth. apart from the fact that Kupelian tangents off from specific youth culture, to talk more generally about, what he sees as the evils of modern american people, he is still very adamant about the youth he see being evil and depraved.

while, initially, i wanted to disregard everything he said as a fundamentalist republican extreme right winger, the article (and part one of the article too) does express his views.

his main contention with the article is to say that todays youth culture are doing whatever they feel like... and not really caring about the consequences. grouping genital and breast peircing with ear and nose peircing. tounge splitting, suspension and scaring your body with tatooing. satanism (worshipping satan) and 'bug catching' (that is, having sex with people with AIDS, in order to get the disease) with the islamic jihad.

he claims that the way out, the way to preserve the good "true American culture" is to create a subculture of your own. and the way to do this, is to home school your children. i must admit, that i laughed out loud when i read that. you can try and remove and protect your children from the world, but they will alweays be affected by it.

i wont really go into the whole christian debate, apart from state that not all christians hold views like Kupelian. His is a very right wing, extreme fundamentalist view... and indeed, he is entitled to hold it.

perhaps that is something that is part of our current youth culture. the supposed willingness to accept other peoples views as their own, as long as they don't try and force it onto anyone else. the current youth culture has access to the most information, different views, beliefs, world understandings than any generation before it. we might not follow in our parents or grandparents footsteps any more, but we are paving our own way forward.

or perhaps, i too, have been brainwashed by the evils of youth culture into taking on a more optimistic, utopian view of present reality. we, as a culture, have a lot of flaws, but i don't think that yearning back to the past is any way to move forward. which is what Kupelian seems to be suggesting.

I am a female gamer. now, i am sure that doesn't mean much to you, unless you know the debate that surrounds females in the gaming world. in today's gaming world, there are many women who play video/computer/console games, which dispels the stereotype that women simply do not game, and that gaming is a male only thing. true, gaming is still a male dominated activity, but there are more and more females who admit to gaming.
unlike 5 or 10 years ago, it is a lot more accepted for a female to play computer games, and there are several websites solely devoted to women who game (female gamers, Lady Gamers, and Girlz Clan are just a few of them.)

there is still a stereotype present that says that girls cant game, or they are bad at it. i, myself, was playing a multi player strategy game (Age of Empires two, the Age of Kings) online with a few male friends, and one of them exclaimed when i defended against an attack "wow! a girl actually did something!" i laughed at that comment simply because i discovered that the stereotype was very much still around.

It seems that computer/video/console games appeal to people of both sexes. and while some males think that girls who game are pretty interesting and exciting (sometimes it would almost be the stereotypical equivalent of a male liking going shopping), and girl who would beat them would be dealing a blow to the guys ego and masculinity. (http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/03/01/news/17537.shtml).

i guess the reason i game is because i enjoy it. i always have played computer games and i don't see me stopping any time soon.


i did a little of my own research, however limited it was, in asking a few of my male gamer friends what they think of female gamers.

one replied "I like them, breaking the mould... seriously, if they enjoy it, then why not?"

another said, "If they can game, then good. I like them, just like I like a guy that games."

the final guy seemed to sum it up, "the conception around female players is that they can't compete as well as their male counterparts in the gaming arena. and yet, when the female player successfully achieves a particular goal or objective, it is treated with greater respect."