A More Personal Introspective

Some of you reading this (if I in fact decided to publish it) may be wondering why I'm doing another post more centrally about me rather than a topic for me to clumsily debate for you like I've been doing. One might say that it is because my past few posts garnered less than positive responses. It's certainly possible, and I actually came to my computer intending to write a far more different piece, by C'est la vie.

I feel myself descending into another one of my routine cycles, one that I'm not too fond of. I wouldn't call it depression, because it's not depression, but it is more of apathy. Every once in a while I'll just take a few minutes off to think about how very routine it all is: we are all doing the same play, day after day, with a few extras swapped out here and there and some dialogue mixed up. It makes me very introspective as to why we do any of it, almost approaching the pinnacle of all self-aware questions: Why are we here?

I've been less than shy about my atheism on this site, but not that kind of why. The kind where I wonder what is it that compels us to do the same thing day in, day out, with very little change for months on end. Surprise, I don't find an answer and just continue on my path of apathy until something comes along and brings me out.

What caused it this time? Can't say I know. Was it the less than stellar reviews I've heard about my previous blog posts? Is it the extreme self-deprication with which I've been approaching midterms which leaves me woefully unprepared? Is it my peculiar predicament which I've recently become aware is quite thoroughly ordinary in all lights?

I don't know.

Maybe it's just the comparison to last year that makes me so sultry. I feel like I've lost most of my friends to the slow death march of time. The only problem is that I can't tell if I've abandoned them or if they've abandoned me. Probably some mix of the two.

I'll sometimes pass someone in the hallway or in the cafeteria that I knew damn well yesteryear or the one before that. Today in the cafeteria I saw one such girl and the only thought that went through my head was 'I remember you.'

I wasn't mad that we had been separated and that neither of us wanted to get back to our previous state. I wasn't wondering whether she remembered me, though I don't think I recognized anything in her eyes. I just looked at her sadly and thought, 'I remember you.'

Is it a problem that we grow and we change and we leave those we once considered brothers or best friends? Maybe. I'm just in an in-between time right now, and that really sucks.

Not sucks in a way that would mean anything to anyone actually suffering out there. Just in a way that sucks for me.

I want to apologize, publicly but in this non-identificateable way for the few of you I've used as a crutch these past few days. You know who you are, and maybe it makes me less of a coward owning up to it here, but I was looking for reassurances about myself that you were providing. It was weak of me. I'm sorry.

Why am I putting this out of the Internet? I don't know, which seems to be a common trend here. I guess I just needed to let off some steam. Maybe I won't post it, and no one will know that this is how I feel. Just don't judge me for it, and please don't pity me for it.  Maybe I'll post it. Maybe.

Thanks for possibly reading and possibly considering,
-J. Valett

Joshua Valett's Junk Drawer

Taking a hand from Movie Bob over at the Escapist, I've decided to do a sort of Junk Drawer episode, where I address a couple of things that wouldn't have made it into full posts. You'll be able to see where one topic ends and another begins by the presence of the ~



~

The Word African-American.

Let's stop using it, shall we? Before I get all SCREEEEE-YOU-ARE-NOT-POLITICALLY-CORRECT screaming, stop and think about this word for a second. African-American.

Are you researching this person's past before calling them this? Assuming that just because someone's skin is darker that they come from Africa is more racist than calling them black in the first place. Would you call someone Swedish-American just because they were white?

I'm not black (Ah! Personal Information!) so I don't have a great view on this, but that makes a lot of sense to me.


~

Grammar (No 'e' in there, folks)

I'm not saying that you have to spell-check and grammar-check every single thing you write on the Internet. I get it, this is your free time and you don't want to spend it like it is English class. Folks, I understand all of this; enough is enough though.

Use full words. Don't use 2 for to or too. Use correct form of their, there, and they're. It just makes everything easier. You saving twenty milliseconds will take a reader a hell of a lot longer to decipher. But no one is going to listen to me on this, so I'll just keep correcting your text messages and facebook posts.

Also, stop using the phrase 'Grammar Nazi'. It's just crass.


~


Movies

This is the only one of these that I considered fleshing out into a full post, but I'm not sure how long or good it would be.

Why is it that movies are considered the dominant form of media? You might not think much about it, but our culture says that movies are the most prestigious.

You ever see a book turned into a video game before a movie? (Witcher series was made into a movie, in case you were going to say that.) How many of you can't wait to see the TV series adaption of your favorite novel (Game of Thrones and a couple others aside, more common nowadays than in the past)? Video game novels? Please, those are only for the diehard fans of the series. TV video games? Lame knock off tie-ins for the quick buck.

Whenever a book/video game is finished, you'll often see things on sites that say, "WHO WE WANT TO PLAY X PART IN Y MOVIE". Why? I don't like the fact that movies are taken for granted as the best form of media.

When something works as a game or as a book, it doesn't mean it will work as a movie. Take the Hunger Games series, por exemple. I really enjoyed the series (well, mostly the first book) for its sense of isolation and one-person-against-the-world survival story. I'm not saying that this couldn't be portrayed well in a movie, but I'm doubtful (Though the producers aren't: they've already commissioned the second book to be made into a movie)

Let's remember the importance of specialization, folks: not every great book or game needs to be a movie. I understand that movies are generally easy for everyone to watch and pay attention to for two hours, but that doesn't mean that EVERY book has to be one. I would never want to see a The Road movie, for example.

~

The Military Scandal

There was recently a scandal in the media over a photo of some US soldiers appearing to pee on the corpses of some slain soldiers in a US-occupied country. There have been mixed responses to it; some people say that you can't curb this kind of thing when you are trying to convince soldiers to do this kind of thing you must dehumanize the enemy.

But think about this: What would happen if it was the other way around? If some Afghanistan soldiers took a picture like this?

The country would ERUPT. Think about it. This behavior is ridiculous and terrible, and I want these soldiers on administrative leave at the best.

~

The Hobbit Rises

I can't find it in myself to muster any excitement at all for The Dark Knight Rises. I really like the Nolan brothers, especially Jonathan as a writer. It's just... Tom Hardy as Bane and Anne Hathaway as Selena Kyle don't blow me away like The Joker and Scarecrow did in the first two films.

I haven't seen it though, and I will see it and give it a chance, but... meh.

Also, I could not understand a word Bane said in that trailer.

The Hobbit movie, on the other hand, looks like its doing great. Shine on, Peter Jackson, shine on.


~


SOPA

Not gonna spend much time on this, as most people already know about it. It was shelved recently, and I don't see it coming back any time soon.

Woo!

But MegaUpload sites were recently shut down due to a crapton of copyrighted content on those sites. MegaVideo in particular had a lot of free movies to watch. If YouTube doesn't keep up its rigid protection of this kinda stuff, it could definitely get the banhammer.

My favorite part of this story was that there was a website apparently called MegaPorn under that label. I find that really funny.


~


I guess that's it for my first Junk Drawer. I might update this later with a couple more, but probably not. Comment and tell me if you like it, folks! I'm out of here.


Thanks for reading and considering,
-J. Valett

Moral-less or (That's One of the Best Puns I've Ever Made)

Okay, remember back to my third or fourth post? Of course you don't, but I hosted a poll asking what you wanted to hear me talk about. The winner was morals, but I completely ignored you.

Well, I've decided to come back to it, after being informed in psychology class of much of the history. It really is fascinating stuff, which is why I'm going to be starting out this post by giving you a brief summary of it. If you don't want to read any of it, or you already know it, just skip the part in between the lines.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some time ago (the scientific term, obviously), some guy asked some other guy to decide what constituted a moral choice and what made something immoral. This second guy, named Kohlberg, decided that the reasons behind the choices made the difference, rather than your decision itself. Here's a chart of what he decided was moral:

Stage One   {Punishment- It only matters to you if you get punished for it. If you do not, you'll do it
                   {Reward- It only matters to you if you get something for it.
Stage Two  {Opinion of Others- What others think of what you do, and what others do matters most
                    {Rules/Laws (Blind)- Follow the rules, even if you don't understand
Stage Three {Rules/Law(Understand)- Follow the rules/laws because you understand the logic behind it
                    {Personal Philosophies- You follow what you believe is right and your ideals

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, I know exactly what you are thinking; Mr. Valett, did you just shove that in there to pad out your post?

NO I DID NOT.

More importantly, you may be thinking, 'There are so many flaws there I don't know where to start'. And you'd be right. Mr. Kohlberg's research pool consisted of a bunch of small white rich boys, not exactly a wide and varied one.

Hey, you've heard of Hitler, right? The current world demonizes the man, and for good reason. He eradicated over 11 million people from the face of the world, and that's only civilians murdered by his orders. He also incited a World War that killed many more millions.

Hey, you've heard of Jesus, right? The current world idolizes the man, and for good reason. He stood for peace and love, and died for other people's sins, if Christianity is to be believed.

According to Kohlberg, they would both be in the same level of the moral spectrum. According to him, Hitler would be as moral as they come.

And when you think about it, there is a lot of solid reasoning behind it. Hitler didn't look at the Jewish people and recognize that they were like any other group; he saw a group of people who he felt were responsible for the downfall of his nation, and all he wanted was to restore his nation to greatness. And amass power for himself. That too.

I'm reminded of a quote that really resonated with me from Neil Gaiman's American Gods. It is, I quote, (and don't worry, it may be from midway through the book, but it has no plot relevance.)

"Look- here is a good man, good by his own lights and the lights of his friends; he is faithful and true to his wife, he adores and lavishes attention on his little children, he cares about his country, he does his job punctiliously, as best he can. So, efficiently, and good-naturedly, he exterminates Jews... and if there is anything he feels bad about, it is that he still allows the gassing of vermin to affect him. Were he a truly good man, he knows, he would feel nothing but joy, as the earth is cleansed of its pests."

And no, I'm still not just padding. So, can morals be defined by the reasons behind them? Maybe. The moral differences between societies certainly support that, because no two societies are exactly the same in what they think is moral.

So, I started thinking, it can't be the actions that are moral, and it might not be the reasons that are moral, so what is?

Then I realized that it didn't matter.

Morals are just a way for people to reassure them of their decisions. But in the end, the decisions are made. We have to live with the consequences, whether or not the choice was made in good faith.

Recently there was a charity collection at my school. I decided to donate quite a sum of my own money, and didn't think much of it. But then I thought about it. Was I doing it for the people, or for what others would think of my decision? I still haven't completely decided, but that money was donated regardless.

Even if the devil cured all diseases to torture the one baby orphan who still had them, the world would be a much better place for it. So do morals matter at all? If I donated that money to make myself feel like a better person, does that make me a bad person?

Does it?

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J.Valett

Cap'n Hook! Cap'n Hook! ( or ARRGH)

On a pre-topic note, PUSHING 3000 VIEWS!

I'm a little frustrated today, for lack of a better word, so let me take this opportunity to talk to people who frustrate the hell outta me. Hello, Pirates.

No, not you pirates in Somalia, though we should probably have a talk sometime too. No, I'm talking about people who illegally download video games, movies, music, and the like.

A lot of people played CD Projekt RED's the Witcher 2. In fact, I'd say that besides doing well commercially, it was also an unbelievably pretty game with interesting branching dialogue. How well did it do commercially? 6 million units are out there, right now, being played. Pretty good, right?

Well it would be, but sadly only 1 million of those units was purchased. That is right, according to CD Projekt RED's counts, for every legitimate copy of the game sold, there were five that were stolen online.

That is completely ridiculous.

Don't forget about CD Projekt RED, because we'll come back to them in a little bit, but let's {I'll} try to break down some of the most common arguments used by pirates. Here we go!

It's Not Like I'm Stealing From Anyone: Okay, hands tied, it is true that when you illegally download copies of things, you aren't preventing other people from getting their hands on them legally, like stealing a physical copy would. But it is still stealing; the producers of that media spent a helluva lot of money getting that particular media built, and you should be paying for it.

It's Not Worth Paying For: This one is really stupid. If it isn't worth paying for, it isn't worth playing/watching/listening to. If the media is good enough for you to want to experience it, you should pay for it.

I Can't Afford To Buy These Things:  This one is harder to address, because of extenuating circumstances. I'll take it medium by medium. Video games are simple in this regard. If you can afford a $300 console or decent gaming PC, I see no reason you can't pay $20 for a good game from a couple years back every couple months. Music- Go listen to youtube, or any other site like that. And don't complain about ads on VEVO and the like. You are getting a free gift, and you complain that you have to take off the wrapping. The simplest way I can put this one is that I can't afford a blimp. Does that mean I'm entitled to steal one? No, it just means I shouldn't buy a blimp.

It's Only One Copy: Gotta say, this one is my favorite. And I'm sure every single one of the Witcher 2 illegal downloaders thought the exact same thing.

Now, CD Projekt RED looked at their sales numbers, and were a little bit bummed. Understandably so. So what did they do? They used their magical technology (which they have not yet revealed to the public) to identify, track down, and confront people who downloaded their game illegally. And once they find them, they offer an ultimatum: Give us a huge sum of cash or watch us sue you in court.

Not surprisingly, all of the people confronted so far payed up.

Some people don't like the idea of going after pirates like this and making them pay insane sums. Why not just charge them full retail for the game?

That's simple. If Jonny Appleseed has a choice to illegally download The Witcher 2 for free, with only a small chance of having to pay $60, or be forced to pay $60 at the start, what would he choose?

Charging these pirates sums of upwards of thousands of dollars is how you get them to stop. You hit the pirates in their weak spot: Their wallet.

Piracy is one of the few issues I see as black and white. Would you steal in real life? Probably not. You feel as though the anonymity of the Internet protects you, and it does. But if your only judge of whether or not something should be done is whether or not you get punished for it, then you have some serious moral issues.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J.Valett

Wolf Whistle (or The Times, They Are A'Changin')

As I sit here, eyeing my growing pile of homework, trying to stare it down, I decide to get some work done: I've decided to write a second blog post in two days! Yeah, hold your applause. I know I'm a hard worker.

SO! Remember the story I used to open yesterday's post? If not, just do the little scrolleys to find it. Well, during that long conversation, my discussion partner inquired about why the main female in the new Mission Impossible flick was displaying so much cleavage, complaining that it drew too much attention and wasn't good for someone trying to blend in. I replied that in today's world, NOT displaying ample cleavage was the more conspicuous choice.

I've been meaning to write a post about this for a while; in fact, during the Dark Days (the period when I didn't post for a couple months, as they shall be known as from this point on) I wrote a post about it, but it was so abysmal that I didn't bother to post it.

Okay, enough beating around the bush. The topic of the day is............. inappropriate choices in clothing!

I know it's sexist to say that this is only an issue that affects women, so saying that would be... well sexist, and also laughably incorrect. Tell me that you've never been uncomfortable around a man who was wearing a Speedo at the beach. I know I have.

Of course, all of this has to be prefaced with two disclaimers. One: these kinds of things change pretty quickly with the times. It wasn't too long ago that it was considered scandalous for a woman to show her knee in public, and now... well I'm not sure what to say about now. Two: These are my opinions, as are most of the pieces on the site, all of the ones written by me.

Now, down to the hard part.

I've always had two conflicting opinions on this issue. On one hand, I believe our society is way too uptight about sexuality. Our bodies are just the physical forms used to carry us from point A to point B, and we make too much fuss about who sees what. Comfort also dictates that you wear what you feel is comfortable. I like that. I'm much more form over function, but that's just me.

 On the other hand, not everyone needs to see what you feel like showing. This, for me, mostly applies to children under the age of 12, though that is a number that I just pulled out of thin air. Does a six-year-old need to wear a bikini? Do the nine-year-olds I see at camp really need to wear shorts that show the buttocks? Even girls in high school do this, as apparently the best way into a man's heart is through his pants.

If I had to make a case one way or the other, I would choose for everyone to wear more clothing. At this point in time, covering up is considered 'decent' by society. I don't like where all of the lack of clothes is leading. Sure, it is entirely possible that the need to physically leave a certain place is all but gone in less than 100 years, but for now, we have to see each other. So make sure we don't see TOO much of each other.

I'm not too happy with this post either, but its better than nothing. Arguably.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J. Valett

Teeny-Boppers (or Yet Another Guest Author)

So, being the kind, generous, majestic soul I am, I decided to grace you readers with yet another guest author, a miss "Bella Darling" (Trust me, I tried to convince her/him/her not to name themselves this). I'll put up a poll to the left of this post asking if you want to see more of her/his/her opinions. Cheers!

So this is not “Joshua Valett” if you were expecting it, sorry. Instead, it’s a girl this time, with a different view of being a teenager, also known as living hell.

This is the time of our lives when we make mistakes. In fact, most people expect mistakes from teenagers. These mistakes include falling in love and then crying our eyes out over a tub of Ben and Jerry’s triple chocolate brownie while watching *insert chick-flick here* when the relationship ends…or maybe that’s just me. But the falling in and out of love thing is true. Now. Were all friends here right? So when I ask you if you have ever had your heart broken, I fully expect the majority of you reading to say yes. I know I have multiple times, and I’m not ashamed to say that.  Having my heart broken has made me a stronger person and made me realize that guys are not, in fact, the center of the universe. The difference between guys and girls is girls have an easier time with feelings . GASP FEELINGS! CODE RED CODE RED! I know. This is dangerous territory. Here’s the thing, admitting your feelings doesn’t make you weak, or vulnerable, it actually makes you more ten bajillionmilliontrillionthoussandhundredbillion times more attractive just in general. I know this is asking a lot, but the next time you see your girlfriend, boyfriend, best friend, crush, or significant other, just ask them how they are doing, how their day is going, or what’s new with them. You would be surprised how far it will get you. Feelings aren’t something to be afraid of, every person has them, you should capitalize on them instead.

I recently had my heart broken. Sad times. But I don’t regret it, because it showed me the persons true colors. My point is that you, yes YOU, should NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER be afraid to like someone, or more importantly, do something about it! I know that liking someone and the thought of doing anything more than admiring from afar can make death seem like a more enjoyable alternative, but im serious its not that bad. I told someone I liked them once, it made me want to throw up while I was doing it, and I got my ass rejected to the street. It sucked for a while, but it was better than never knowing and spending my life wondering. Plus, I moved on and I was happier from it, gave me the ability to find someone who really cared about me.  I want you to say something with me, both girls and guys.  Repeat after me: Admitting my feelings is not the worst thing that will ever happen in this world. Let that sink in a moment. Then repeat. Not so bad right? Because it isn’t! Feelings are what make us human! Without them, well we would be cold blocks of heartless mush. Eww.  

Here’s something beautiful about being a teenager: Were still young. We have loads of time left! So if no one likes you right now, or you have come to the realization that people suck, or you just aren’t ready, that’s all okay. There’s plenty of time for all of that.  

One more thing? Love is beautiful. Never be afraid of it.

Thanks for reading and considering,

-B. Darling

Amor (or How you SHOULD Feel)

During this wonderful and decidedly short break, I had a conversation with someone about love. Being an avid reader on this site, my compatriot decided that I did love my family. The person argued that how I felt for my parents constituted love, and that once I meet a little blonde pig-tailed girl for whom I felt the same, it was time to get married to her and skip off into the sunset.

At the time, I politely disagreed and changed the subject.

I know I have another article up about love, and another one from a second mystery author on the way, so I'll go back and re-read that article to make sure this isn't a retread. (For those interested, http://ideasofidealists.blogspot.com/2011/05/chocolates-and-flowers-or-love-of-love.html). Gosh, were my writings all that short back then? Is all of this clutter (Hyuk hyuk hyuk) detracting from my message? Eh, whatever, I'm enjoying myself.

One of my biggest detractions from the assumption that you should automatically love your parents and your siblings is what it implies. I'm not really sure where I stand on the "one-true-love" thing, but I don't think I'm for it. The idea that there is only one person in the world that can make you happy is daunting, considering there are 6,999,999,998 other people besides the two of you to sift through.

The thought that anyone you endure for long enough can, nay SHOULD, be loved is one I don't like. I prefer to actually have connections with people, to find common interests or ideas to start a friendship with, not just common genes. If your family is horrid, for e.g., should you automatically love them?

No! You should not! Now I'm not saying that my family is horrible, quite the contrary. I really do like my parents, and my sister isn't quite as bad as I make her out to be. We just aren't really compatible. If she was not a relative of mine, I doubt we would be friends. Hell, I don't know if I would be friends with any of my relatives!

One major thing that bugs me about love is how incessantly it is pushed into movies, television shows, and video games. It seems that for every romance that fits and makes sense in the context of the piece, there are roughly ten others that were shoe-horned in for no apparent reason! Lazy story writers use romance as a way to add some more emotional weight to the piece, without needing relatable characters or interesting scenarios.

I'm not opposed to the idea of love. I even disagree with the second comment on my first article about love, that says that teenagers can't experience it. Why? Do we lack the proper glands to feel love? There are plenty of adults who say that they are in love when they are not, so why can't teenagers actually be in love.

I thought I was in love once. Perhaps I was, though I doubt it. They say that when you are in love, you know it, and I didn't know it, so perhaps I wasn't. The time I thought I was was awesome though. Love, if popular culture has taught me anything, is the greatest thing in the world. Dumbledore was a big fan of the thing, and if there's one guy I agree with on almost everything, it's Albus.

But it shouldn't consume a life. Love, in my humble opinion, should be the salt on the pretzel. While it isn't 100% necessary, you'd say it was missing... something without it. But don't put too much on, or you will miss out on the flaky rest of the treat.

That was a bad analogy for me though, because I love salt. Seriously.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J.Valett