Games and Violence

Why is it fun to kill people in these violent games?  Do people really want to kill? Of course not, so why all the violent games?

Well I have an idea for games.  Try creating games that does not use instinct and does use your brain.  If you create games that allow people to think and try to use more of their brain, then maybe we (all Americans) will not seem so lazy and unskilled.:)

There are of course some games that use your brain, but I think there needs to be more and more exciting ones.  Just as they say in the Game Over movie, the problem is not the technology, it is how we use it!  Well, try using this media as a way to make people smarter, not trigger happy.  Which, I believe, does lead to being more violent.  If you are never exposed to violent video games or movies then you will never know violence (maybe), but if you are always playing violent games, then you Will be more likely to be more violent.  I do not mean all of the middle class/normally typical decent minded folks will all become violent people, but I do mean that if violence starts to become natural-just like in the military-then there will be a larger amount of people using violence as a way to live. 

Now to talk about ALL kids.  Just because there is a rating scale for video games, that does not mean kids do not get their hands on them!  Especially when their big brothers and sisters are all playing them for 5 hours a day!  Then, they want to play too.  So, instead of all the typical players saying, “No, there isn’t a problem with people playing violent video games” then why not be better role models and read a book!  Show kids that it is ok to read, write, and think.

Then, if the video games become more about thinking than instinct, then show them that it is okay to play, only for a few minutes a day.  That way, maybe there will be less gang violence and more book clubs!  Oh what a tragedy that would be for our jail systems! (Sarcasm)  Then our culture will start to shift toward the positive instead of the negative that seems to be so cool for the kids.  It is up to everyone-gamers and nongamers-to help the future of our culture and kids to become more healthy-minded.
Maria

Masquerade on the Net?

What differences and similarities are there between the way we construct our identities in “real life” and the way we might choose to play them out online?
 
I would have thought the only people using IM would be from friends and family to get some general information (i.e. how are you, when do we meet, etc.) but getting IM from marketers was definitely a surprise.  It is very intrusive and I feel like I am being watched.
 
However, it is not surprising to have tons of people selling things by email.  Sometimes it is even hard to tell who is a friend with a quirky subject heading and who is a very creative marketer.  I normally think that people use email for getting in contact with friends etc. keep their own personality and want to share their “real lives” with their friends.  But, I’m sure there are also people who use email as a selling tool that also uses a very different personality!  For example, look at all the sexual emails being sent to everyone.  Are these people really out there in “real life” asking people to…?  No, it is a masque they wear to conceal who they are and who they never would be in person.
 
I think that people want a fantasy world that they cannot have in real life, so they go online to chatrooms, Muds, and Blogs to become a different person.  They can create a life they would never possibly be able to form in “real life.”  On the other hand In Hanging Out in the Virtual Pub, Kendall suggests that people are themselves and just want a group of friends or acquaintances to hang out with on the computer.  This seems just like a bar that allows only a certain type of people in it.  It sounds like the people in this virtual pub are not socially graceful and could not be accepted by other types of personalities (since they all sound like computer nerds).  At least that’s what I get from Kendall.  (Please no hate mail regarding nerd and computer together!)  I just mean that they seem like they want to stay with their own kind so they can feel comfortable. 
 
Kendall also talks about people not saying whether they are male or female.  I think this raises a good point about how people talk with each other.  Chat rooms should not have to hold down a certain tone or speech just because the opposite sex may be there.  It is just like in real life when people are around other groups of people and a remark is made that may offend some (just like the “blow me” example Kendall uses).  People do not go over to these people and tell them to be quiet (some may, but I do not think most do).  They just stay away from them and would not want to get to know that person.
 
And of course on the other hand, there are many different times when remarks are made in a setting that is inappropriate and people will suggest them to hush up.  There is a big difference between a locker room and a classroom.  I do not think being on a blog or mud is going to force someone to keep from watching what they say, just because the opposite sex could be around.  After all it would be very hard not to upset anyone all the time.
M

CyberFEMINISM

Bill Gates-everyone knows what he looks like but, ever heard of a woman named Meg Whitman? No, well why not-SHE is the President and CEO of EBay Inc. Amazing how women with money and power are not often seen, unless she’s Oprah.


But, to define cyberfeminism I looked at a few different sites and looked up their definitions.

At the first site http://projects.ups.edu/honors_thesis/lhandy/tech%20gender.htm
They state that cyberfeminism is “A Gendered Power Imbalance.” Obviously this is very similar to the term feminism. But, this article goes on to say that “Positions of power in technology are still dominated by men, creating a technological power imbalance women face every time they log on.”

This is a bit strong. I may be female but I do not feel terribly imbalanced every time I log on the web. I would liked to have seen this article give examples because I have not had this type of feelings at all. The same article also tells the readers that women need to be more aware of these problems of men-domination. They state, “I think a kind of CyberConsciousness-raising needs to occur for women, so they can connect their individual technological isolation to larger power dynamics and inequities.” Again, if I do not know what they are talking about, how am I supposed to get more aware?

The next site http://www.obn.org/cfundef/faith_def.html feels that cyberfeminism is “the desire to research, theorize, work practically, and make visible how women (and non-women) worldwide are affected by new communications technologies, technoscience, and the masculinist, capitalist dominations of the global communications networks.” With my own idea of what feminism is about, I still do not see how all of these areas are affecting women.

The third site http://home.gwu.edu/~marcial/cyberfem.html sees cyberfeminism more closely to everyone being equal than feminism itself. They “tend to see cyborg politics and consciousness as a means of erasing difference. What does this mean for women, for the disabled, or for minorities who have historically been seen by dominant culture as different (from the white, male norm) and therefore inferior? This definition gives a greater meaning to being more diverse on the web. I think this is a better picture of cyberfeminism than all the others because it is not just about WOMEN.

The fourth site http://artwarez.org/aw/content/orange_truth.html has an article by Cornelia where she refuses to define cyberfeminism but then suggest that all people go to a search engine and look up the term. But, she does send a message that there is a first and second wave of feminism. Although she does not go into detail about these, I think it has to do with the idea of feminism from the 70’s and the more recent (the second) as the women of today. The women of today have a better sense of weighing family and careers; whereas before the women were more about getting heard and getting equal voice. And of course this is my own opinion.

The other types of feminist views are as Brayton points out in the website http://www.unb.ca/web/PAR-L/win/cyberfem.htm, “Feminism itself has no standard definition. There is no one "Feminism" but many different branches of feminist theory (Marxist, Liberal, Lesbian, Postmodern, etc.) that differ according to the theoretical orientation and topic at hand (such as women's rights, gender roles, race and social location, or political issues). But at a basic level, feminism recognizes the organizing of the social world by gender.”

The majority of these sites are done by women (of course) and overall it sounds as though cyberfeminsim is about Patriarchy and women being squished by men. I don’t think this is the case but, until one of these sites starts proving their points I will continue to view cyberfeminism just as I do feminism. We are all equal in a certain sense, but God made us all a bit different. We have to keep that in mind.

Religion or Profit?

My thesis:
• Comparing two websites on Catholicism, it seems as though they are at war with each other over money. Money? Yes, both websites promote the commercialization of their religion more so than the religious beliefs of yesteryear.

My argument is:
• The two sites I compared www.catholic.org and www.catholic.com are both commercializing their sites.
• They both use their sites as advertisements to get people to buy their religious materials.

My evidence is:
• Each site lists a variety of materials available for purchase.
• Each site lists a host of sponsors that try to sell you either: information, materials, or services.

External sources I used are:
http://www.aworldconnected.org/•
Brasher, Brenda E. Give Me That Online Religion.
http://www.catholic.com/
http://www.catholic.org/cathcom/.
http://www.catholicsingles.com/index.html.
http://www.varbusiness.com.
Edman, Peter. Review of Give Me That Online Religion. 2001. http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/articles/9744.htm.

Possible refutations of my argument are:
• There are many people that may feel that the money made is not just for profit but to help pay for all the valuable religious information on the site. Basically, people would argue the site needs the money for upkeep and updates.

My conclusion is:
• Religious websites need to get back to their roots of just giving valuable religious information and not commercialize their sites for more of a monetary profit.

Comparing and contrasting Brasher and the Hate.com video

Brasher talks about the great variety of how online religion is good for people because of choice. People do not need to stay in one religion because of their parents or because they grew up in a certain area. There are plenty of religions that are now available online to fit your needs.

In the Hate.com video (I will call them the racists) they feel they are giving a way for people to seek them out. They are helping to give their religion to a great amount of people that would otherwise not get to see racist material and get a religion out of it too! Oh how nice of those racists! (Sarcasm)

However, Brasher feels that having all types of online religions is a good thing. I do not think that she is aware of the large amount of hate religions that are out there. It seems to me that she basically studied all the religions that are actual “real” religions. (For lack of a better word)

In the Hate.com video the racists are available to all people. Not just the regular racists, but to kids, teens, and other people that may be going through tough times in their life and then getting these people something to believe in and someone to blame. (Just as the Southern Poverty Law Center stated in the video) I think these websites are out to recruit people who do not have a particular religion to believe in and provide sanity to their lives.

Well, if you are a racist and find the type of religion you want on line, then yes, Brasher’s idea of online religion-finding is a good thing. But, if you are not a racist and get turned on to these hate websites while looking for a religion, then no, it is not a good thing. I think these sites are way too interactive and try to coerce kids and people to believe in these terrible views and get them to do their dirty work.

Brasher uses an example of a witch in cyberspace (julia) that actually used the internet to learn more about neopaganism, but she was portrayed by Brasher as being somewhat sane and could make good decisions. Julia also was able to create a positive out of this supposed "negative" religion. But, I do not think that all people who are searching for religion are going to be quite as affluent and understand the positive and negative aspects of these more "off the wall religions."

Unfortunately, too many people are justifying their beliefs with these sites. Maybe, we could make it mandatory to be of a certain age in order to get on a hate website. And have laws against kids creating hate sites too!
Maria Baker

What is digital diversity?

What is digital diversity?
I think the web is a great tool for knowledge, but it can be very offensive to certain cultures and views, depending on how the words or pictures are done. For example, some cultures may be quite offended by a very aggressive web site whereas another group may find it perfect.

Since the web is so large and deals with vast amounts of people and heritages then the writers on the web need to know who their audiences are and who they may be later.

What I think this class may be about-
I think this class is going to discuss how different people view different aspects of life and how it is portrayed on the web.

What I may learn from it-
I hope to learn how different people think. I am amazed at all the different ideas about one topic people can have. Not only is it fun to hear, it is a great learning tool, especially when I plan to teach kids with learning disabilities.

What do Religions do for people?

I think that religions make people feel good. Whether it is because they feel accepted, feel whole, or feel pure, I think it is all about the feelings of the mind, body, and soul.

They may feel their religion is their sense of being. Whereas, there are other cultures that see religion as their life. Some cultures make their devotion to their God the only important aspect of their life-since it is their God that gave them life-and they want to give back to their God. And this again, goes back to feelings.

In other cultures I would assume that there is a worry for being saved. I think when people do things they are ashamed of or make mistakes(we are all human)that people need someone or God to give them forgiveness. Sometimes it is too hard to ask forgiveness from another person, but it is very easy (in my opinion) to ask a God. Then, when there is a judgment day (or something of the sort) then they will feel blessed with Gods mercy and forgiveness.

I think that there is certainly a tradition that goes along with religions also. When the same types of religious ceremonies are taking place year after year, there is a certain feeling of being a part of something unique that could make anyone feel good.

Religious sites

Here are two very interesting websites I found about different religions.

The first site:
http://www.buddhanet.net
I thought this site was very well done and also has a bit of the same things that Brasher discussess.

The second is my favorite of the two:
http://www.truetao.org/
Enter this site with the music playing. It is very peaceful and relaxing. This site reminds me of when Brasher was talking about the senses that are not always available online.