The RI Clusterfuck Video Game(s) of the Year

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby FourthBase » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:54 am

theeKultleeder wrote:
FourthBase wrote:Again, where would you have got the impression I felt this:

Maybe human beings really are as morally weak and malleable, and so easily controlled by video, as you believe.



FourthBase wrote:
And 4B, you are onto something with the psychology of people who enjoy killing. I would suggest the percentage of the population who do take pleasure in it remains the same despite the popularity of "killing" in video games.


I would suggest that is utterly improbable.
There has to be at least a minimal uptick.


What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously.

"There has to be at least a minimal uptick."
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AlanStrangis » Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:52 am

I was thinking about this thread and the Cloverfield one on my way into work, and something fundamental is missing from the USG propaganda/recruitment tool portion of the discussion...

The Army put out the game "America's Army", a blatant OVERT promotional tool. They also have a whole Hollywood division for consulting/working with film makers. I no longer entertain the concept of the USG using covert means of creating recruitment tools for the next generation, because there is NO evidence that it actually works.

If the dark craft of manipulation worked, where are all the new recruits? Prior to 9/11 enlistment levels were dropping. It TOOK 9/11 to get people to sign up and 'do their part', but that bit of necromancy was disspelled when the dark sorcerers cast the spell of Iraq.

What is the point of even building a theory, when the expected effect isn't even there, especially when the military broadened it's eligibility base to little effect?

----

As for violent behaviour, I'd say that immediately after playing a violent game, yeah. I'd buy that. I've had an adrenaline crash after playing some intense multiplayer CTF, especially with an organized team. It's a blast.

As for long term effects, I'm skeptical, in the same sense I don't think heavy metal causes teens to kill, just that those types of personalities are drawn to that music (not just those personalities of course (not that I'm a fan)). Call of Duty & Counter-Strike are the Ozzy and Judas Priest of a new generation. I put the blame on a combination of mental health issues and unhappy domestic situations than on some piece of pop culture.

Digging into the Mockingbird-esque nature of WHY the AP considers everything Britney is "a big deal", and what outside influences were placed on Mr. Baker to say so seems to be much more pressing, because THAT strikes me as a much more plausible example of PSYOPS than Cloverfield's main character being named Hud.

Edit to add: And the Britney/Lindsay Lohan/diva of the day also seems to be MUCH more far reaching. Even though I couldn't give a crap about any of it, it's unavoidable. It's literally crammed down our throats.

I'm just saying.
AlanStrangis
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:34 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby FourthBase » Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:19 pm

AlanStrangis wrote:I no longer entertain the concept of the USG using covert means of creating recruitment tools for the next generation, because there is NO evidence that it actually works.

If the dark craft of manipulation worked, where are all the new recruits? Prior to 9/11 enlistment levels were dropping. It TOOK 9/11 to get people to sign up and 'do their part', but that bit of necromancy was disspelled when the dark sorcerers cast the spell of Iraq.

What is the point of even building a theory, when the expected effect isn't even there, especially when the military broadened it's eligibility base to little effect?


Has it occurred to you that enlistment levels might have been on their way to even more miniscule numbers, and that the propaganda tools and then 9/11-related emotional blackmail have saved enlistment levels from being dramatically lower than the lows they've been? So that even though enlistment overall dropped, the propaganda still increased it from where it would have gone naturally (because the default sensible thing to do is not enlist).

As for violent behaviour, I'd say that immediately after playing a violent game, yeah. I'd buy that. I've had an adrenaline crash after playing some intense multiplayer CTF, especially with an organized team. It's a blast.

As for long term effects, I'm skeptical, in the same sense I don't think heavy metal causes teens to kill, just that those types of personalities are drawn to that music (not just those personalities of course (not that I'm a fan)). Call of Duty & Counter-Strike are the Ozzy and Judas Priest of a new generation. I put the blame on a combination of mental health issues and unhappy domestic situations than on some piece of pop culture.


Heavy metal doesn't have to directly cause a person to kill in order for it to have a lingering effect of some kind on the mind. Child A & Child B are raised identically, except that Child A listens exclusively to heavy metal, industrial music, hardcore punk, etc. and Child B listens exclusively to pleasant, melodic pop. Now maybe there's something individual to each Child that initially draws one to metal and one to pop, but don't you think the disparate music experiences would have some measure of a cumulative long term affect on the listener's brain and personality?

It's literally crammed down our throats.


It really is.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: PBS and MIT are USG.

Postby theeKultleeder » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:03 pm

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:
So don't expect dangerous truths to come out of either MIT or PBS.


Oohhhhh, bad evil.

Maybe I should go to "mind control forums" for all my 'scientific' reference? Lord knows the BEST info comes out of that hole.

I also posted an APA essay as well as some guy from a Canadian University. And a wikipedia factoid... oh... oh... I know... CIA
:roll:
theeKultleeder
 

Postby AlanStrangis » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:50 pm

FourthBase wrote:Has it occurred to you that enlistment levels might have been on their way to even more miniscule numbers, and that the propaganda tools and then 9/11-related emotional blackmail have saved enlistment levels from being dramatically lower than the lows they've been? So that even though enlistment overall dropped, the propaganda still increased it from where it would have gone naturally (because the default sensible thing to do is not enlist).

As far as recruitment tools, my hunch is that overt advertising and more recruiters on the ground are going to be more effective than all the Tom Clancy spin-offs combined. ;)

That and maybe one or two false flag car bombing incidents (which I'm actually surprised hasn't happened yet).

It's hard to judge, because there is no easy baseline to work with, but ultimately it's those proposing the theory to explain it.

Heavy metal doesn't have to directly cause a person to kill in order for it to have a lingering effect of some kind on the mind. Child A & Child B are raised identically, except that Child A listens exclusively to heavy metal, industrial music, hardcore punk, etc. and Child B listens exclusively to pleasant, melodic pop. Now maybe there's something individual to each Child that initially draws one to metal and one to pop, but don't you think the disparate music experiences would have some measure of a cumulative long term affect on the listener's brain and personality?


Sure, I agree that to some extent that we are what we eat, but early childhood behaviour will have a greater influence. As for the music example, depending on the bands Child A listens to, I'd expect a healthier sense of the individual with an anti-authoritarian bent, or a raving skinhead nutjob (depending on lyrical content of said bands). Child B would probably be a wet blanket, or more likely a wet sponge that absorbs whatever it's told is the most popular and grow up to be a happy consumer. ;)

Seriously though, it's been my experience that whatever allegiances one had to music as a teen may still linger but as one gets older that influence changes, as musical influence doesn't exist within a vacuum.

It's literally crammed down our throats.
It really is.

That's why I find those areas of manipulation more interesting, and more in line with the gov't influence than the possibility of some fictional media possibly being propaganda.

Historically, there is a clear case of art/entertainment as propaganda, overt and covert, but that doesn't mean that all or anywhere close to most of it is.
AlanStrangis
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:34 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: PBS and MIT are USG.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:52 pm

theeKultleeder wrote:
Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:
So don't expect dangerous truths to come out of either MIT or PBS.


Oohhhhh, bad evil.

Maybe I should go to "mind control forums" for all my 'scientific' reference? Lord knows the BEST info comes out of that hole.

I also posted an APA essay as well as some guy from a Canadian University. And a wikipedia factoid... oh... oh... I know... CIA
:roll:


Thanks for having pulled up the several sources and viewpoints.
I didn't mean to imply you hadn't.

I was just jumping on MIT and PBS because they ARE eeeeevil. :twisted:
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby FourthBase » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:04 pm

Hugh, those institutions may be suspicious (PBS, though?) but an association with either doesn't by itself mean a goddamned thing. In the real world, the phrase isn't "The tree doesn't fall far from the apple". Whatever's suspicious on PBS can probably be parsed even further into its grant/corporate sponsors like Exxon or the Ford Foundation. Whatever's suspicious from MIT can at least be parsed into specific departments like the Poli Sci department or the Media Lab. Wielding the entire institution around like a brush is fucking stupid, and lazy. Way too many good people work and study (non-nefariously) at those places for you to throw them all under the bus just because you feel like it.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:15 pm

FourthBase wrote:Hugh, those institutions may be suspicious (PBS, though?) but an association with either doesn't by itself mean a goddamned thing.....

Wielding the entire institution around like a brush is fucking stupid, and lazy. .....


Proportionality is exactly what I'm referring to.

Hitler loved his dog but...

MIT and PBS both have been Pentagon-CIA thinktanks/consensus devices since inception.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests