It's so inspiring.
Some are inspired to hate those whom aren't inspired. Others are inspired to hate those whom are inspired. Still others are inspired to hate those whom aren't inspired the right way.
Some are inspired to start wars. Others to start peace.
Some make art and literature and some make censorship.
When it comes up everything changes. You can feel it, hear it, see it. Some people get nervous. They're afraid someone, maybe themselves, will say something wrong. They are afraid to offend and afraid to say nothing and afraid to run into the wrong sort of person and that wrong sort is likely to think that the first person is the wrong sort.
Personally I get a little bit excited when religion comes up. I grew up Catholic but sadly, never got to talk about it all that much. We had religion class in school (it was a private Catholic school) but it was pretty much useless shit. By that I mean, technical details like what you call the stuff the priest wears. We never really had any understanding of the Bible and certainly no discussion. To some extent it made sense since you're not likely to get much use out of a bunch of ignorant and immature younguns.
I do remember when we were one told to write a sort of diary for one of the holy periods; perhaps Advent. They were to be private, the teacher only checking to make sure we had written, not to actually read it. Can you guess the result? Oh yes, exactly: I don't trust adults. Despite being 22 I don't really consider myself adult because once I am, I am no longer to be trusted. Perhaps they're not all rotten liars, but when you're betrayed at a young age it tends to stick.
I wrote about how the classes were stupid. Pointless wastes of time. I said we should talk with the priest and pastor and actually learn something worth learning. Enlighten ourselves if you will; though I doubt I used the word at the time. Clearly this was critical of quite a bit. But what should a person do, lie and hide? This was probably intended to be a message to God or something of that sort; not really the place for pushing aside one's true thoughts.
I was sent to the principal. There I explained to her that my teacher had lied. I don't know if anything happened, and I might have been able to find out. The little bit of good news was that I don't recall being in any trouble with the principal. Even then I knew she was a reasonable person and my opinion of her has only become more positive since I graduated from there.
Getting back to the point: Catholicism is a strange thing in my heart. I can't say I believe it. But I respond to it. It is something I recognize and remember. A little piece of my childhood as familiar to me as legos or soccer. Perhaps I could call it nostalgia. I must admit that this is almost certainly due to rose-colored glasses, for I distinctly remember at the time being bored out of my mind by Mass. It was boring. I didn't like singing and I didn't want to inflict my terrible voice on others, though before puberty took its full toll I was told I had a decent voice and excellent tone (or is it pitch?). Sermons were boring. Kneeling hurt my knees. Sometimes in the summer I'd get dizzy and have to sit outside.
Which reminds me of a time when the same happened to a friend of mine. I insisted that he be let outside for air. Instead the previously mention idiot teacher made him stay inside sitting and covered him with a coat because... well I don't know why. She seemed to think he had a fever. Looking back I wish I'd hurt her for refusing to listen; she was endangering my friend and refusing to listen to my own experience just to sate her pitiful ego.
With all the political correctness these days, religion almost seems risque. It's dangerous and unusual. I like to see it, hear it, discuss it. I want to see it not shoved under the table as some frightening thing.
And yet, I despise fundamentalists. They would put religion front and center and everywhere. They would make it only their own distorted, hateful beliefs. When they speak of religion I feel no sense of remembering or familiarity, only of hatred and ignorance radiating from them. It saddens me and sickens me. They are the cause of people calling Christians hypocrites. They are the cause of religious war. To be truthful, they are not Christians. They identify as all sorts of religions, but they are all the same sickening sort just with different, equally incorrect labels.
I believe firmly in the separation of Church and State. And yet, I think our schools shouldn't have to be so afraid of religion. Talk about it as history and philosophy and sociology and myth and all the many things that it is. There's no need to say it is right or wrong or needed or unneeded. But it is too much of our society and world to just ignore, to do so is to leave students woefully ignorant. It is a dangerous thing to discuss with public funds, but it should be done as long as it is done with great care.
Sadly, zealots on all sides would likely ruin the attempts.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Or does that violate free speech?
Earlier I advocated 'virtual execution.' Basically if you commit virtual crimes, you should virtually die. In the original case I stand by what I said.
But I also extended it to another blogger named Gevlon. Since then I've realized that this was stupid of me. He commits no crimes. Should his hateful speech be a crime? I'm tempted to say yes because it would shut him up. But that's mostly an emotional reaction. I can see that it would be the first step in erosion of freedom of speech online.
Are there times to curtail freedom of speech? Maybe. But, I suspect all instances are paternalistic, the government telling us what to do or not do for our own good. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is illegal because it would cause undue panic. But isn't that just government protecting us from our own irrational reaction?
We can extend this to hate speech. I'd prefer that people not call Obama Hitler and that the KKK didn't have downtown rallies in nearby suburbs. But why should we not let them? If we don't like their ideas it should be on a rational ground. We should be immune to them. If we try to shield others from them it can only mean that we don't think they are immune, that they cannot make good decisions about what to think or not.
Idealism says that I should let the hateful keep screaming. Self-interest is more divided.
If they keep their screaming, they just might convince someone. Or many people. next thing I have a mob of their drones knocking on my door asking why I don't support them. By that I mean they burnt down my house and tried to kill me. Perhaps shutting down some speech is only a preventive measure, containing the madness before it gets dangerous.
But if someone else can be silenced, that means I can as well. Offensive speech is in the ear of the listener. I can say nothing wrong and still end up in the same category. Self-interest dictates that I not get someone else shut down to ensure that the same does not happen to me.
Getting back to the internet as free speech, it's more than that. It's freedom of all sorts. Assembly and religion and market. Yes, market. The internet is the closest thing to a free market that we will ever see, excluding Web 9.0 which will be telepathy-based. The internet the be the new land of the free and it is everywhere. This means that any attack on internet freedom is an attack on freedom everywhere. It is the new Bill of Rights, the new Constitution, the new Magna Carta and whatever other listing of rights that you can think of, all rolled into one. With this in mind, if Comcast (or anyone else) keeps trying to fuck with net neutrality, I suggest getting out your second amendment rights and explaining that our freedom is worth more than their profits.
Next time I plan to talk about security and freedom. Sneak preview: if someone tries to trade some of your freedom for some of your security, listen carefully and ignore everything, because in the long term people like him will completely fuck over you and everyone you know.
But I also extended it to another blogger named Gevlon. Since then I've realized that this was stupid of me. He commits no crimes. Should his hateful speech be a crime? I'm tempted to say yes because it would shut him up. But that's mostly an emotional reaction. I can see that it would be the first step in erosion of freedom of speech online.
Are there times to curtail freedom of speech? Maybe. But, I suspect all instances are paternalistic, the government telling us what to do or not do for our own good. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is illegal because it would cause undue panic. But isn't that just government protecting us from our own irrational reaction?
We can extend this to hate speech. I'd prefer that people not call Obama Hitler and that the KKK didn't have downtown rallies in nearby suburbs. But why should we not let them? If we don't like their ideas it should be on a rational ground. We should be immune to them. If we try to shield others from them it can only mean that we don't think they are immune, that they cannot make good decisions about what to think or not.
Idealism says that I should let the hateful keep screaming. Self-interest is more divided.
If they keep their screaming, they just might convince someone. Or many people. next thing I have a mob of their drones knocking on my door asking why I don't support them. By that I mean they burnt down my house and tried to kill me. Perhaps shutting down some speech is only a preventive measure, containing the madness before it gets dangerous.
But if someone else can be silenced, that means I can as well. Offensive speech is in the ear of the listener. I can say nothing wrong and still end up in the same category. Self-interest dictates that I not get someone else shut down to ensure that the same does not happen to me.
Getting back to the internet as free speech, it's more than that. It's freedom of all sorts. Assembly and religion and market. Yes, market. The internet is the closest thing to a free market that we will ever see, excluding Web 9.0 which will be telepathy-based. The internet the be the new land of the free and it is everywhere. This means that any attack on internet freedom is an attack on freedom everywhere. It is the new Bill of Rights, the new Constitution, the new Magna Carta and whatever other listing of rights that you can think of, all rolled into one. With this in mind, if Comcast (or anyone else) keeps trying to fuck with net neutrality, I suggest getting out your second amendment rights and explaining that our freedom is worth more than their profits.
Next time I plan to talk about security and freedom. Sneak preview: if someone tries to trade some of your freedom for some of your security, listen carefully and ignore everything, because in the long term people like him will completely fuck over you and everyone you know.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Is advertising the solution to useless people?
When I say useless people, I do not mean those who are incapable of being productive, but are instead unnecessary.
Let's start with the idea that technology has made humanity more productive. We are so productive that we do not need to work an average of 40 hours a week. Much less would be sufficient for survival or even for a moderate standard of living. We could work 20 hour weeks instead. Or have 50% of the employable population not working and redistribute their wages and production to the unemployed 50%. The latter would clearly cause major social problems.
What about 20 hour weeks? Those would be less efficient. Why educate and train people just as much as currently when each works only half as much? It would be more efficient to go with 50% unemployed and not working.
Neither of these happen.
Instead we have persuasive advertising. This causes people to buy products which cause only marginal increases in happiness. In fact, studies have found that there are very rapid diminishing returns on happiness such that there comes a point when more work for more pay for more material goods results in lower happiness.
Someone makes these products: The excess 50%. That's right, 50% of people are actively employed doing little more than burning oil and making you less happy. BTW, you work more hours to buy their crap.
This leads to the inevitable happiness economics:
1) Work the same amount and get half hour effort taken away. Be angry about this.
2) Work the same amount and waste half your money. Be less happy due to the extra work.
Which of these is worse? And no, 3) kill 50% is not an option because that still leaves an excess 50%. Percentages don't play nicely with mass-murder.
There is always 4) Everyone works 40 hours and we burn off the excess by bombing each other.
Let's start with the idea that technology has made humanity more productive. We are so productive that we do not need to work an average of 40 hours a week. Much less would be sufficient for survival or even for a moderate standard of living. We could work 20 hour weeks instead. Or have 50% of the employable population not working and redistribute their wages and production to the unemployed 50%. The latter would clearly cause major social problems.
What about 20 hour weeks? Those would be less efficient. Why educate and train people just as much as currently when each works only half as much? It would be more efficient to go with 50% unemployed and not working.
Neither of these happen.
Instead we have persuasive advertising. This causes people to buy products which cause only marginal increases in happiness. In fact, studies have found that there are very rapid diminishing returns on happiness such that there comes a point when more work for more pay for more material goods results in lower happiness.
Someone makes these products: The excess 50%. That's right, 50% of people are actively employed doing little more than burning oil and making you less happy. BTW, you work more hours to buy their crap.
This leads to the inevitable happiness economics:
1) Work the same amount and get half hour effort taken away. Be angry about this.
2) Work the same amount and waste half your money. Be less happy due to the extra work.
Which of these is worse? And no, 3) kill 50% is not an option because that still leaves an excess 50%. Percentages don't play nicely with mass-murder.
There is always 4) Everyone works 40 hours and we burn off the excess by bombing each other.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Identity
Who are you?
Strange as it may sound, this name, Klepsacovic, is the one I identify with most. My first name in real life sounds strange to me. I suspect it's because I didn't choose it, it was given to me. It's a common, boring sort of name. I don't blame my parents for it; they picked a good Catholic name, and another for my middle name, and then I took a third at confirmation. But none of these are truly independent creations by me. This is a name I've used for years. At least eight years, probably closer to nine or ten.
In real life I am 22. I go to an engineering school though I major in psychology. I have red hair which I have grown very long and plan to donate. My friends are all nerds. Sometimes we play D&D together and talk about nerdy stuff. I grew up near Chicago, IL. So what?
Much of real life is given to us. A great deal of it is not earned or wanted. It's just there. Race, name, age, location of birth are all just there. These can constrain us, pushing us into identities which we don't much care for.
A friend of mine is a girl. She claims to be male. In other words, physical sex and identified gender do not match in her mind. Her solution is to become male. This strikes me as rather stupid. She a dozen other problems to worry about. In other words, if this was an experiment, there are a whole hell of a lot of confounding variables. Maybe identity isn't the problem and very likely a physical change isn't the solution.
But perhaps I am a hypocrite to say this. We all try to change ourselves, to remake ourselves into something we want to be. I've made an online self which doesn't quite match my real life self. There's a lot of overlap, but I suspect much of that is from my online self moving into real life. It's almost as if it were a testing ground for selves and if I find one I like, I implement it.
I believe it is different though. We will naturally be different online. It is a freer place. People are fluid and will match the container they are in. It shouldn't be surprising that people would make other selves. We do it in real life too, changing who we are to fit the circumstance.
All this changing, shifting, adapting, it brings back the question: who are you? Are you your physical self, your mental self in the physical self, or possibly are you most yourself when unbounded by reality? Or maybe that's just being delusional.
Strange as it may sound, this name, Klepsacovic, is the one I identify with most. My first name in real life sounds strange to me. I suspect it's because I didn't choose it, it was given to me. It's a common, boring sort of name. I don't blame my parents for it; they picked a good Catholic name, and another for my middle name, and then I took a third at confirmation. But none of these are truly independent creations by me. This is a name I've used for years. At least eight years, probably closer to nine or ten.
In real life I am 22. I go to an engineering school though I major in psychology. I have red hair which I have grown very long and plan to donate. My friends are all nerds. Sometimes we play D&D together and talk about nerdy stuff. I grew up near Chicago, IL. So what?
Much of real life is given to us. A great deal of it is not earned or wanted. It's just there. Race, name, age, location of birth are all just there. These can constrain us, pushing us into identities which we don't much care for.
A friend of mine is a girl. She claims to be male. In other words, physical sex and identified gender do not match in her mind. Her solution is to become male. This strikes me as rather stupid. She a dozen other problems to worry about. In other words, if this was an experiment, there are a whole hell of a lot of confounding variables. Maybe identity isn't the problem and very likely a physical change isn't the solution.
But perhaps I am a hypocrite to say this. We all try to change ourselves, to remake ourselves into something we want to be. I've made an online self which doesn't quite match my real life self. There's a lot of overlap, but I suspect much of that is from my online self moving into real life. It's almost as if it were a testing ground for selves and if I find one I like, I implement it.
I believe it is different though. We will naturally be different online. It is a freer place. People are fluid and will match the container they are in. It shouldn't be surprising that people would make other selves. We do it in real life too, changing who we are to fit the circumstance.
All this changing, shifting, adapting, it brings back the question: who are you? Are you your physical self, your mental self in the physical self, or possibly are you most yourself when unbounded by reality? Or maybe that's just being delusional.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Bush was the new Hitler
If you bring him up in an argument it means you lost. Obama has taken up the mantle now.
Or to generalize it, just because someone bad did something doesn't mean it is also bad. Bush did some good stuff. I can't think of much off the top of my head, but it's pretty dumb to pretend "Bush did it" is an accurate test for if something is a bad idea.
To take it even further, it's a bad idea to take some words or ideas to be innately bad. A few things are. I can't think of any good circumstances for torturing infants. But words get thrown around too much. People call Obama a socialist, as if that is a bad word, when it's not even a particularly descriptive word. Or people called Bush a fascist (other say the same about Obama, and pretty much every president ever). Was that an accurate label? Nope. But it's something that we take to be innately evil. We associate it with the Holocaust and mass murder. But is fascism innately evil? Did Italians in the 30s and 40s rally around evil? This isn't a fantasy universe where death cults have political parties.
Now Obama is the new Hitler. People are being Hitlerized constantly these days. It's a useful tactic for crushing someone, but for productive debate? It's useless.
Once Obama is Hitler you can't reason with him anymore; who would try to reason with Hitler? But he's still President. It's not as if he vanishes once he's had a mustache photoshopped onto his upper lip. The only result is the disabling of government and the inability to make any progress.
I wish we could have a time when bringing up Hitler wasn't an automatic loss. Imagine if we said things like "This seems like a good idea, but it does have some fascist tendencies, so we should be very cautious in how we apply it." That would be good. We should do that more often: look at worst case scenarios and take steps to avoid them. But this doesn't happen. Instead the slightest step in any unwanted direction is thrown to the extreme and debate is made impossible.
I tried to explain this to the LaRouchians last week. They didn't seem to understand. I explained that the mustache isn't easy to take off once its been put on. I don't think they cared.
The irony is that Hitlerizing wrecks democracy, it wrecks freedom of expression, it shoots down any dissenting opinion. Hitlerizing is something Hitler would do. Oh damn, I just did it too.
Or to generalize it, just because someone bad did something doesn't mean it is also bad. Bush did some good stuff. I can't think of much off the top of my head, but it's pretty dumb to pretend "Bush did it" is an accurate test for if something is a bad idea.
To take it even further, it's a bad idea to take some words or ideas to be innately bad. A few things are. I can't think of any good circumstances for torturing infants. But words get thrown around too much. People call Obama a socialist, as if that is a bad word, when it's not even a particularly descriptive word. Or people called Bush a fascist (other say the same about Obama, and pretty much every president ever). Was that an accurate label? Nope. But it's something that we take to be innately evil. We associate it with the Holocaust and mass murder. But is fascism innately evil? Did Italians in the 30s and 40s rally around evil? This isn't a fantasy universe where death cults have political parties.
Now Obama is the new Hitler. People are being Hitlerized constantly these days. It's a useful tactic for crushing someone, but for productive debate? It's useless.
Once Obama is Hitler you can't reason with him anymore; who would try to reason with Hitler? But he's still President. It's not as if he vanishes once he's had a mustache photoshopped onto his upper lip. The only result is the disabling of government and the inability to make any progress.
I wish we could have a time when bringing up Hitler wasn't an automatic loss. Imagine if we said things like "This seems like a good idea, but it does have some fascist tendencies, so we should be very cautious in how we apply it." That would be good. We should do that more often: look at worst case scenarios and take steps to avoid them. But this doesn't happen. Instead the slightest step in any unwanted direction is thrown to the extreme and debate is made impossible.
I tried to explain this to the LaRouchians last week. They didn't seem to understand. I explained that the mustache isn't easy to take off once its been put on. I don't think they cared.
The irony is that Hitlerizing wrecks democracy, it wrecks freedom of expression, it shoots down any dissenting opinion. Hitlerizing is something Hitler would do. Oh damn, I just did it too.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
LaRouche
Today I ran into some an Obama Hitler. This is my term for people who put Hitler mustaches on Obama pictures. To be fair, I really should have been talking about Bush Hitlers years ago as well, but hindsight does not allow us to travel through time.
My initial reaction to the Obama Hitler was racism. I yelled at the woman at the booth for misusing the image of a man who was trying to save her (and my) race. I said he was trying to save us from *points at Jewish friend* but she disgraces his memory by associating Hitler with him *points at friend of ambiguous race but clearly not Caucasian*. She said I wasn't be serious and had no interest in talking to me. In reality, I was being quite serious, I just had different methods. I intended to demonstrate the absurdity by acting a mirror for it. Sadly, it was only after the fact that I thought of calling her close-minded for not giving Hitler a chance.
My trolling complete, I moved on to logic, or at least tried given the circumstances. I attempted to figure out exactly what she was trying to say. I still am not quite sure. I did pick up a few things though.
She was pushing the beliefs of an American named LaRouche and kept calling him an economist. The last time I heard of him was in 2000 when a van of supporters drove around and indirectly called my aunt a whore.
The general idea was this: The British Empire is destroying America, put Hilter in power to destroy Germany, and also Obama. He is a Nazi who wants to kill humanity to save the environment. He wrote the healthcare 'reform' to kill old people. His Nazi friends write books about killing old people and will be on the death panel. Nazis either started or destroyed space exploration. We can only save the economy and develop fusion desalinization by going to Mars. From what I heard from other people, the British killed Lincoln so they could put Teddy Roosevelt in office as a Confederate spy. And Hitler Obama.
There were two groups on campus. The first group was rude and condescending, talking only when people agreed and ignored even suggestions. I tried to explain that their message appeared convoluted to people passing by; they said they didn't care about popular opinion. I tried to explain the problem with Hitler Obama; they said they don't care about advertising, they care about reality. One of them also said she doesn't care about truth.
The second group was much more polite. We talked for a while, getting nowhere. I was a skeptic, trying to figure out their positions and maybe get some sense from them. Though I did manage to get one to support rationing healthcare, right after I said Hitler rationed healthcare, but I don't think he noticed. Overall they were polite, but seemingly immune to facts and with strange logical skills (or lack thereof). At the end I thanked them for being able to talk with those with whom they disagree.
Also one claimed the the Kennedys only supported the space program because Eleanor Roosevelt called Robert Kennedy a Nazi. This was not an unusual statement for the group.
I got a bit off track I guess. I'll cover Hitlerizing some other day, which was my original intention.
My initial reaction to the Obama Hitler was racism. I yelled at the woman at the booth for misusing the image of a man who was trying to save her (and my) race. I said he was trying to save us from *points at Jewish friend* but she disgraces his memory by associating Hitler with him *points at friend of ambiguous race but clearly not Caucasian*. She said I wasn't be serious and had no interest in talking to me. In reality, I was being quite serious, I just had different methods. I intended to demonstrate the absurdity by acting a mirror for it. Sadly, it was only after the fact that I thought of calling her close-minded for not giving Hitler a chance.
My trolling complete, I moved on to logic, or at least tried given the circumstances. I attempted to figure out exactly what she was trying to say. I still am not quite sure. I did pick up a few things though.
She was pushing the beliefs of an American named LaRouche and kept calling him an economist. The last time I heard of him was in 2000 when a van of supporters drove around and indirectly called my aunt a whore.
The general idea was this: The British Empire is destroying America, put Hilter in power to destroy Germany, and also Obama. He is a Nazi who wants to kill humanity to save the environment. He wrote the healthcare 'reform' to kill old people. His Nazi friends write books about killing old people and will be on the death panel. Nazis either started or destroyed space exploration. We can only save the economy and develop fusion desalinization by going to Mars. From what I heard from other people, the British killed Lincoln so they could put Teddy Roosevelt in office as a Confederate spy. And Hitler Obama.
There were two groups on campus. The first group was rude and condescending, talking only when people agreed and ignored even suggestions. I tried to explain that their message appeared convoluted to people passing by; they said they didn't care about popular opinion. I tried to explain the problem with Hitler Obama; they said they don't care about advertising, they care about reality. One of them also said she doesn't care about truth.
The second group was much more polite. We talked for a while, getting nowhere. I was a skeptic, trying to figure out their positions and maybe get some sense from them. Though I did manage to get one to support rationing healthcare, right after I said Hitler rationed healthcare, but I don't think he noticed. Overall they were polite, but seemingly immune to facts and with strange logical skills (or lack thereof). At the end I thanked them for being able to talk with those with whom they disagree.
Also one claimed the the Kennedys only supported the space program because Eleanor Roosevelt called Robert Kennedy a Nazi. This was not an unusual statement for the group.
I got a bit off track I guess. I'll cover Hitlerizing some other day, which was my original intention.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Is advertising really free?
Why do companies pay for advertising? Assuming they are rational, it is because they think that they can generate enough profit to at least offset the cost of advertising. Where does this profit come from? Us of course. It comes from us buying more of their product.
This can be a good thing, a win-win situation. There may be a new product that we don't know about, but which we'd love to have. For example, I am glad to know of the existence of an upcoming Star Wars MMO. By advertising it to me, the company is increasing its profits and helping me to, eventually, find an awesome new game*.
On the other hand, it can be a win-lose. Or actually a win-win-lose. The first winner is the seller who gets more business. The second is the credit card company. The loser is the person who is caught up in a whirlwind of advertising, consumerism, and disregard for the idea that credit runs out eventually.
This actually works quite well for me. I get a lot of online content for free because of advertising. For me it is free since I either see something I want or it's some consumerist shit that I ignore. My free content is subsidized by those who are more apt to spend their money, and that of someone else as well. Oh sure, sometimes I don't like seeing ads, but that's what NoScript and ad blockers are for. It's great: I get free stuff without seeing many adds. Other people who I don't know wreck their lives. To top it off, their interest payments are what make it possible for credit card companies to offer things like airline miles or cash back.
So I suppose to answer the question: yes, no, no. For me it is free. For someone else it is not. For society overall, it is not. Or to be more accurate: no, no, no. I don't benefit much when people go on credit binges and support a wasteful economy, which then crashes when the card companies realize they can't milk much more and dump the person.
* This sounds like viral advertising, doesn't it? Oops. TBH, I couldn't think of many good examples. Maybe a surprise 8th Harry Potter? Or a remake of Episodes 1-3 that don't make me want to cry? I'm out of ideas.
This can be a good thing, a win-win situation. There may be a new product that we don't know about, but which we'd love to have. For example, I am glad to know of the existence of an upcoming Star Wars MMO. By advertising it to me, the company is increasing its profits and helping me to, eventually, find an awesome new game*.
On the other hand, it can be a win-lose. Or actually a win-win-lose. The first winner is the seller who gets more business. The second is the credit card company. The loser is the person who is caught up in a whirlwind of advertising, consumerism, and disregard for the idea that credit runs out eventually.
This actually works quite well for me. I get a lot of online content for free because of advertising. For me it is free since I either see something I want or it's some consumerist shit that I ignore. My free content is subsidized by those who are more apt to spend their money, and that of someone else as well. Oh sure, sometimes I don't like seeing ads, but that's what NoScript and ad blockers are for. It's great: I get free stuff without seeing many adds. Other people who I don't know wreck their lives. To top it off, their interest payments are what make it possible for credit card companies to offer things like airline miles or cash back.
So I suppose to answer the question: yes, no, no. For me it is free. For someone else it is not. For society overall, it is not. Or to be more accurate: no, no, no. I don't benefit much when people go on credit binges and support a wasteful economy, which then crashes when the card companies realize they can't milk much more and dump the person.
* This sounds like viral advertising, doesn't it? Oops. TBH, I couldn't think of many good examples. Maybe a surprise 8th Harry Potter? Or a remake of Episodes 1-3 that don't make me want to cry? I'm out of ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
