Snap! Crackle! Pop!

Just another WordPress.com weblog

EverQuest ever too much? March 26, 2007

Filed under: Soc3390 — mmmchocoloate @ 8:52 pm

I am particularly drawn by this week’s topic, not because I am a gamer, but in fact the opposite, I am not. I really don’t know very much about gaming, except the typical… “video games are a waste of time and way too violent for young children.” Little did I know there is so much more to it. Gaming has “penetrated mass media” and thus requires deeper analysis.

In particular I and the media often look at gaming as just that, a game, but it seems there is more to games… Stories, characters, conflict, competition, social interaction and networking. I think as technology has improved gaming has become more socially interactive.

The EQ article focused on the complex social networks that developed among players. I think that is an important distinction, not the characters, but the players. The game encourages and almost forces players into interdependent relationships in order to succeed. This made me consider that perhaps there were valuable components to gaming.

If you think about sports, running around after a ball… some could argue this is a waste of time. But then the rebuttal to that is the players learning to work together, interact, overcome conflict and be entertained. Could one describe gaming in the same way? Yes to some extent.

I would however, argue that gaming in a virtual world removes one from the face-to-face social interaction that is disintegrating primarily as a result of the internet. Friends online are good, but are “Real Life” friends being eliminated?

I think gaming, just as anything in life requires balance. My boyfriend (an avid gamer) goes to school until about 4pm five days a week and from about 4pm – 9pm he is gaming at a LAN in Calgary. This seems like a lot to me. He does not play EQ… but does know people that do.

Now I often find myself in awe of the fact that he spends so much time there, but he says he likes to go there because he gets to play the computer games he likes with other people online. Furthermore, he goes to one particular gaming place, because he has become friends with the other players who go there. So for me, this is evidence to what Jakobsson and Taylor discuss about groupings and interaction that takes place during gaming.

Gaming does have some limitations to a form of social interaction that primarily occurs starring at a screen in a virtual world… I asked my boyfriend about EQ, and he immediately stated “it ruins lives”. I became intrigued after the readings had just swayed my perspectives a little towards the positive… He explained in gamer talk “you become consumed by the beast” and play for hours on end to build up a character. Perhaps some players allow their online lives to consume their “offline lives”.

Well, this was also evidenced in the guild requirement from the article:
“You must play more EQ than you spend time sleeping. We need people who are dedicated and like to play a LOT. Our raid time is generally 4-12 PST in the evening. If you can’t make it for that, Fu isn’t the right place for you.”

This is a little extreme… And no different than someone who spends 8 hours a day watching television losing their social life…

What do I think?
I am looking forward to our class discussion on Wednesday because this is a topic that demands attention.
Personally, I don’t think gaming is as bad as I thought. It is simply another medium of social interaction.

 

To split or not to split? March 26, 2007

Filed under: Mass Class, Soc3390 — mmmchocoloate @ 6:37 pm

null

The answer is generally no (in formal writing it is probably good to avoid using the split infinitive).

The split infinitive is a grammatical construction in which a word or phrase, usually an adverb or adverbial phrase, occurs between the marker to and the bare infinitive (uninflected) form of a verb. (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

A famous split infinitive is: “TO BOLDLY GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE”
Boldly (the adverb) splits to go (the full infinitive).

 

Segregation Island March 18, 2007

Filed under: Soc3390 — mmmchocoloate @ 3:59 pm

I remember when I saw the first advertisement for the new race-divided Survivor. I was appalled and with good reason. I anticipated that there would be public uproar when the show started, so I watched 1 or 2 shows so I would be able to contribute to the uproar. Problem was that I didn’t even hear a little roar and in watching the show to fight it, I actually ended up contributing to ratings. A real catch 22, when it comes to the media. You watch to fight against it, but in doing so you keep the show going and everyone just acts like the world is hunky-dory and does nothing.

It is no longer ‘survival of the fittest’ but ‘survival of the fittest race’. This show is taking steps back from individual equality. Yes, we are definitely not equal yet. The caucasian race still seems to dominate at the world scale, but we are moving towards integration and equality. Separating us by race in mainstream television is irresponsible and inappropriate. Pitting the ethnicities against one another sort of emulates a mini world war on our own television screens.

Even if the teams become integrated, only one person wins and that person represents their race. So the other three races are losers and the winner gets bragging rights because of the color of his skin?

I mean what’s next, Canadian Survivor, Aboriginals, Maritimers, Prairies and Frenchies all competing for the title of the best race or culture or whatever??? This type of media is inhibiting all movements towards social respect and equality.

This was not a social experiment, this was a move to get people to pick sides and create controversy. I am offended by this blatant segregation of the four “main cultures”. Not only are these cultures being stereotyped throughout the show, but now the world comes down to four types of people? Picking ‘the main four’ completely disregards the vast cultural diversity that exists within our world.

What really strikes me is that when it comes to divisions by race it is noticed, but what about “boys against girls” which is everywhere in our culture. Having groups compete to demonstrate their greatness will only evoke social problems. This world is divided by race, gender and class; so in some ways the media is simply representing society. However, since the media is so influential to our daily lives there is a grand responsibility on its shoulders to make accurate and unbiased representations about people and perhaps contribute to changing these inequalities

The other article about race and ethnicity in the movies raises some interesting notions as well. I think all races are portrayed in stereotypical ways that do not accurately or respectfully represent that culture as a whole. I think any movie or television show in the media can be dissected to find underlying racism and/or sexism. Because these things are so embedded in our real lives, they are also entrenched in our mass media.

The question is, is it the media’s racial and sexual portrayals that affect our culture or is it our culture that needs to demand changes in the workplace, government, education and the media?

Perhaps if the media could portray us all as equals, we could start to see it as a possibility in real life? I think that may be a little too idealistic and also scary to give such a huge responsibility to TV and movies!

Representing for their race…

 

Propaganda at its most powerful… March 11, 2007

Filed under: Soc3390 — mmmchocoloate @ 2:32 pm

null

Capitalism is about objects and items and “we are a consumer culture”. My concern is that advertising is no longer just showing us the items that are available, but actually affecting the thoughts and actions of people on a much higher level than buying or not buying.

Is it true that our happiness is actually tied up around these objects for sale? Well that is what they are trying to brainwash us into thinking and I do believe we have been brainwashed. Why do we buy the BMW instead of the Toyota – for power and ultimately, happiness? What about all these beauty products? If we aren’t pretty and don’t look like the airbrushed models in the ads will our lives be miserable?

I think advertising is becoming so dangerous. We are being inundated with these unattainable standards that we fail to meet. I guess they figure as long as we are trying, we will be buying.

What really concerns me is that we are no longer just buying products, but buying our happiness. Even worse is that advertising is showing two objects – the one to buy and the women.

Women are portrayed as objects in virtually all marketing schemes. They sit there in those ads, with make-up, tight clothes holding some item for sale. Our status is being reverted back in time to objects.

Making women equal to objects is a dangerous slope that we are sliding down. It is a whole lot easier to rape and abuse an object than a woman. For those men inclined to hit a woman, it sure does seem to make it more acceptable since really she is just another object.

I took a WMST class about the gender and the media. We analyzed many, many ads to look at how women are portrayed. It was quite alarming, especially since these ads are everywhere around us. They are on TV, on billboards and in magazines for little boys and girls to see their whole lives and most certainly shaping their minds.

In most ads, women are lower than men, dressed much more sexually, usually serving a man’s needs or selling some product to make us look better for who? Men.

I know I sound like a big time bra burner here, but if we really took the time to look at what advertising is propagating in the minds of boys and girls, I think we would want to lock up all the children.

I mean girls are told not to concern themselves with anything beyond how they look. And men are being told that the best way to evaluate a woman is the way she looks. For goodness sake we can’t even change the way we look, its genetics. Unless of course one chooses plastic surgery, which is another issue completely.
Advertising is and could have some very detrimental effects on ourselves and our culture if we don’t learn how to separate marketing schemes from our ‘real’ lives. It is a huge propaganda system that sets these unattainable standards and creating generations of self-conscious, product-dependent individuals. Because it is such a well funded propaganda industry it is getting into the heads of everyone.

I mean why do so many girls have eating disorders – because they want to be the same size as the airbrushed models in the bikinis. Why? Because they are being told through advertising/media that this is the only way they will get a boy to like them.

 

Let others work hard so you can reap the benefits… March 5, 2007

Filed under: Soc3390 — mmmchocoloate @ 1:51 pm

I am not really a music person, but I am a review person. I only listen to the music on the radio when I am driving, so I have actually never even heard of Pitchfork until this class. Reading this article got me thinking about ratings and reviews that I use and why I use them?

Why just last night I was trying to decide between Zodiac and The Number 23. I checked out Rotten Tomatoes (another review website). Zodiac had like a seven and 23 had 3 out of 10; and that made my decision easy. Went to Zodiac and I have to say they were right, it was a good flick.

FYI – usually anything that gets a six or higher could be worthy of your attention on Rotten Tomatoes.

Reviews save time and money. There is so much selection that it would be literally impossible for me to check out everything I was interested in. There are many different forms of ‘reviews’ you have awards (movies, music, TV and books), online reviews, newspaper reviews, magazines and the face-to-face with people around you. We all make decisions because of a review from someone else. If a few people say “that was a great flick” I will more than likely check it out. When something gets a weak review or when nobody even bothers to mention the show, book or whatever I tend to avoid those.

Reviews act as a filter system; weeding out the crap and promoting the fantastic. Yes perhaps a few good ones fall through the cracks but more often than not they do a good job. There are so many to reviewers choose from, even within that article there were several other music review sites mentioned.

I ask, how else could we ever decide what to buy, use, see or listen to? We have too many options to do it alone. We are constantly inundated with new things that it would be impossible to find what you like. The internet provides uncensored reviews of everything, which allows us to get the ‘authentic’ opinions of people who have experience with products, music, movies and anything else of interest.

The problem is finding a review system that works for you. It is important to find an award or reviewer that appeal to your tastes. This is difficult, but if you listen I bet you can get a review on a few reviewers and find the best for you.

As a final note, I have to say I checked out Pitchfork and I spent like an hour just exploring things I never would have noticed. I recommend it to those of you who haven’t been there. As the article said they are putting out many, many reviews each day. The six person staff at Pitchfork works hard so you don’t have to!

One more thing…
Although I am pro-review, I did feel that people can become too comfortable being told what to do and forgetting to think on their own. I think there would be some serious consequences if we become too dependent on reviewers for our information. What’s next? Reviews on politics, education, economic and social issues? People to tell us what to buy into and what to avoid… we will become a passive audience for reviewers.

 

The movie is only a portion of the cinema experience… February 24, 2007

Filed under: Soc3390 — mmmchocoloate @ 2:20 pm

Whether it’s a ‘tell everyone to see it flick’ or a ‘can I get a refund flop’ when you go to the theatre you get more than just the movie. You get people, food and atmosphere to enhance the movie; why else would people pay to see the movie at the theatre when they could just rent it at home. Smith has it all wrong… the cinema experience is so much more than just greasy food and Hollywood actors.

We arrived early to ensure I was able to observe movie goers from ticket purchase to film credits. I encountered a total of three lines and in each I observed people socializing. These are not the dreadful lines at a grocery store; they were a time for people to talk about school, family and work. First I purchased my ticket for a mere four dollars! This is a modest fee compared to the cost of most social activities these days; it costs over five dollars to rent a movie from Blockbuster (which does not include the theatre experience).

We proceeded to the next line, which by the way Mr. Smith is optional. I choose to engage in the entire experience for the sake of my research and therefore, purchased the regular pop and popcorn combo. My senses were tantalized as I waited in this line by the popping sounds and buttery scents. Smith was right that there are huge helpings of food and beverage; why not? The theatre is giving you a bang for your buck if you choose to buy the food and now you can even get a refill if the first helping wasn’t enough. Russell Smith thinks this is simply a greasy, disgusting display of eating habits. To this I say have you ever gone to McDonalds and seen people eat? At least in the theatre it’s dark and you don’t have to watch them eat, you can look at the big screen in front of you.

Although the food line was a bit slower, due to understaffing, I was able to observe a parent and child ahead of me. I realized the movies are a place for all people, young and old, friends and family. The movie theatre is open to all members of the public and it does not have a dress code. I saw a few girls dressed in high heels and four people wearing sweats or pajama pants. This is a place for people to come out, escape their everyday life and get immersed in a story on a big screen with surround sound. This is a rare opportunity for complete strangers to share laughs and tears at the same time.

As we approached the last line I saw people holding hands, smiling and talking. When we go to the movies we are spending time with people. How often do we do this? People are too busy or isolated in their own lives watching TV or typing on their computer to get out and see each other. Going to the movies forces people to leave their house and interact, what is so bad about that Russell?

Now this is one of my favorite things about the movies, the ticket-ripper who welcomes you, rips the ticket and then even informs you which direction to go for your movie. As I entered the theatre I noticed that people go to the movie in pairs and space permitting always allow for a buffer seat between strangers. This eliminates the awkwardness of sharing an arm rest, although the buffer seat is not possible when the theatre is full, most strangers are very considerate to one another in the movie theatres. I have yet to see anyone honk and finger the person beside them at the theatre, even if they do it all the time on the road.

This leads me to my next point people are really quite considerate at the movie theatre. I noticed four people (myself included) who pulled out their cell phones to turn off the ringer. This was the later show and there were no crying babies or loud teens, everyone was quietly speaking to their friend or significant other and enjoying the snacks they had purchased at the concession. Something was missing though; it was the movie trivia that Smith had associated with death. At the Movie Mill they played these terrible Lethbridge business ads that did perhaps remind me of death. The Hollywood trivia is fun and something interesting to do while waiting for the movie. It’s a lot better than just staring at the black screen or those business ads.

As for the people talking that Smith couldn’t stand, which I find strange because there are few places in public where you don’t hear people talking, it immediately came to a quiet hush as the lights dimmed. The speakers got louder and the advertising and previews began, which only lasted for thirteen minutes (less than half of the thirty minutes Smith proclaimed). At this point I actually became enraged with Smith because he so irrationally attacks the cinema for inundating us with commercials, when the media does this everywhere. Those commercials on the big screen are no different than those on the radio, television and street or in magazines and newspapers, on the internet and in our email accounts. Welcome to western society, we are consumers and there are advertisers.

So the feature presentation began, the movie was serious but also had some comical moments. Yes, there was that one person with the crazy laugh who actually made everyone else laugh a little bit harder during the funny parts. The most amazing part of observing the audience was noticing that all the strangers sitting in this dark room were connected and sharing the same emotions. People laughed at the same time, gasped and even cried with the person three rows in front of them. Going to the cinema is a social activity where people interact with friends and strangers in a way that rarely happens anywhere else in public. Smith simply overlooks the socializing that takes place in a movie theatre when he argues that everyone just stares at the big screen.

The movie ended and everyone compiles there belongings and prepares to exit. You are not even expected to clean up after yourself; there are people who do that for you. What I loved most about the exiting post-movie is that people filed out in a completely civilized and uniform fashion. There was no one pushing you from behind or cutting in front of you. As I was leaving I was reminded of a recent airplane experience; when it was time to exit people were savages, pushing and shoving, digging for their bags with no regard for anyone else.

When the audience was leaving I heard discussion of the acting, film, critiques and particularly with this film the issues that were raised. The movie was Blood Diamond and this was not the trivial, sun-dappled, California megastudio film that Russell Smith attributes to film. This was a movie about real issues that evoked awareness in the audience. I actually heard one women ask her husband or fiancé about her diamond and its origins. I personally have never thought about African conflict diamonds as I stroll through the mall peaking at Ben Moss displays, but I will now. When I left this movie I said to my significant other, “this is just about diamonds, what about all of the other resources the developed take from the developing countries”. The entire drive home consisted of a debate about western mass consumption and the consequences of our actions throughout history. So Smith, not everyone is talking about what food they like and dislike.

This is not the trivial conversation Smith complains about regarding the discussions associated with movie going. Although some of it is trivial, the movie lets people leave their everyday life and become immersed in a story, a different culture or a fantasy world. Whether it is fiction or based on a true story, drama or romantic comedy people are entertained at the cinema. The food is tasty and the atmosphere allows every individual to escape into the movie. The dark room, comfy seats, surround sound, big screen and fellow audience members make the movie experience one that is pleasant and far from the exaggerated death that Russell Smith describes.

null

 

Sports: a distraction from real issues? February 20, 2007

Filed under: Soc3390 — mmmchocoloate @ 12:03 pm

In Manufacturing Consent, I found it really interesting when Chomsky discussed the purpose of sports. If you think about it the majority of the population in North American culture lives around professional sports. Many people have “their team” and “their player” and spend a lot of time watching people play a game with some sort of ball and net.

I think this idea of sports as a distraction to keep the masses focused on trivial things rather than real political and global issues can be extended to the massive amount of Hollywood/entertainment type media. If you don’t waste all your time watching sports, there is something else for you… ET, tabloids, magazines (like people — what people? Hollywood celebrities and which ones are breaking up and hooking up).

The media is filled with sports and celebrity distractions. I mean more people in the US voted for American Idol than in the presidential election… Come on!

What I want to know is who benefits by distracting the general public from real issues? Probably those people with some power in our society who use the general public’s ignorance of issues to gain more power and financial strength.

Pop culture is taking us away from real issues into sports games and celebrity lives…

Example: CNN covered Britney’s new haircut… Was there nothing more important to talk about?

Another eyewitness report on Britney’s tattoos… (Chomsky was right we are being distracted from real issues in the media when their is a 3 min report on a celebrity’s tattoo.)

 

Let’s be critical… it’s all propaganda. February 11, 2007

Filed under: Soc3390 — mmmchocoloate @ 7:09 pm

Here is a definition to pick apart:
Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda is often deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. (Wikapedia)

The news on TV and the print in black and white greatly impacts the opinions of the population. The coverage in the news/newspaper is definitely not impartial, because it is the voice of the “owners”. Who are the owners? Well they are the investors, governments and big corporations with money and power in our societies, basically the few elite portraying the media to help their cause.

What does this mean to me? CRITICAL THINKING… You can’t just believe it because someone in a nice suit, behind a wood desk told you over the television. THIS JUST IN… they are reading off a teleprompter and the person who okays the words on that little screen is one of the elites also controlling everything you see on the screen in your living room.

The problem is that when I see something on the news, I don’t really question it. They have the geographic locations, good vocabulary, maps, pictures and video clips to back up what they are telling me. I don’t feel the need to do any more research on the topic, in that 3 minute coverage I figure I have a ‘good enough’ grasp of the issue to get by.

SO WRONG. When you watch this stuff, you have to be critical of the logo you see on the screen, the investors, the government and the advertisers who are all censoring what you ‘get to know’ in order to protect their interests.

This is particularly true with global affairs. As in the article about Venezuela, the average person is only going to understand that simplified version they read or see on the news. Especially when it is outside of their nation and in most cases across an ocean. What does the public do when their media tells them something, believe it. Should they? Probably not.

Here is a clip of an American who just doesn’t know any better, he is just basing it on what the American media told him. (However, I do not believe that justifies the way he acts).
Rated R for language.

SO WHAT TO DO? With the internet at our fingertips we can search the web about issues we hear on the news. Look into the story and find more than just one perspective. BLOGGING is the perfect example, it is not all elite censorship to promote a cause, so check out some blogs if you need some info. But keep in mind even blogs, everywhere you go and everything you hear is from someone, so BE CRITICAL.

Look for the facts beyond just a news broadcast or newspaper column, then maybe get a blog and inform the rest of the world who hasn’t clued in yet that the person behind the teleprompter is not as objective as they want you to think.

Here is an example of someone who uses his critical thinking skills regarding the media…

Noam Chomsky on Latin America, particularly Venezuela.

And I have to say people actually participating in FESTIVUS in their own homes is quite the evidence that mass media is taking over!!

 

I’ve got bunny ears & I’m proud of it. February 2, 2007

Filed under: Soc3390, TV — mmmchocoloate @ 11:02 am

I grew up on bunny ears and I still have them. Well my dad was right I watch enough television on 4 channels… Seriously, I can’t even imagine having cable, there are only 24 hours in a day, why spend so much time staring at the TV?

The textbook said kids watch about 900 hours of television a year. No wonder our generations are identified by the TV shows we watched as kids. I am a Fraggle Rock, Alf and Popples kid — if you know these shows you are probably of my TV generation.

What is scary is that we are socialized on TV and we continue watching it for the rest of our lives… what are we watching? We are predominately watching American culture and values in our Canadian homes. We grow up in a satellite Hollywood that portrays sex and violence all over our television screen.

The sex and violence on television continues to push the line and eventually we will be watching porn on CTV at 9:00pm. Seriously, I find it extremely disturbing the way women are portrayed as sexual objects and men as violent and powerful. This is what kids are watching 900 hours of…

I think it is a good idea to get bunny ears and do something else instead of watch TV. There is so much smut, scandal and violence on TV and after I sit on my couch for an hour, I wonder what did I really get out of that? The other night I was going to have a bite to eat and go do some reading, instead I watched an hour and a half of American Idol. Finally at 10:30 on the commercial I asked myself, “why are you still watching this crap?”

It is such a waste of time and money (well I have bunny ears so not the money part); but my time is very valuable.


Here are a few fun clips for the kids of my TV generation. Enjoy!



 

It’s quality, not quantity January 29, 2007

Filed under: Soc3390 — mmmchocoloate @ 7:17 pm

Karen Evans’ article talks about how virtual communities are increasing public, social and cultural interaction around the globe. These virtual communities are based on interests, not just territorial location as the traditional method of forming communities.

I have to ask… is it quantity or quality that we are looking for in our communities and personal relationships? Yes, millions of people can get connected based on their own personal interests, but are we really dedicated to these relationships? For me, absolutely not. Without the face-to-face, personalized interaction my relationships are of little importance. I feel less accountable to someone from a virtual community in comparison to someone I might bump into on the street.

What I am saying is that although you can have and maintain a vast amount of relationships with people from a virtual community, I don’t think these relationships are as deep or personalized as those with people you physically interact with.

If I get an email from someone (especially mass emails) I feel much less obligated to respond than when I have a message on my phone. I think the anonymity of the internet removes the accountability from a social relationship. Who cares… So what if you don’t write or email them back, you will never have to face them in person.

null

I also think that things like MSN, although they allow you to talk to an unlimited number of people at one time does limit the level of conversation you are having. From my personal experience, the conversations are short and superficial because I feel rushed to respond to my next beep.

Therefore, I would argue that virtual communities do not always promote more focused conversation, just because everyone likes Grey’s does not mean their virtual interaction is more meaningful than people who bump into each other and TALK in person. I think it is an important element of life, being able to interact with people face-to-face… They told us in pre-school; you have to learn how to play with others. Can you really learn to play in separate rooms via a keyboard?

Virtual communities make physical appearance irrelevant and allow “anyone with access to an internet-ready computer and a basic knowledge of how the internet works…” to be included in the community.

BUT WAIT… Anyone is a very specific group of people with income, education, computer access & knowledge and probably the ability to speak English (since the internet is primarily based on the English language). These “inclusive” virtual communities are actually quite exclusive.

Check this link out for a map of global internet access. — There are definitely some people (countries actually) that are being excluded from these virtual communities.