Prince Myshkin

Not sure if I've made this thread before. It was something I was interested in a year ago but I may not have been posting at that point. My current job has brought it back to the forefront. I couldn't find a similar thread through the search bar so figured I'd start this one up. Not sure how much participation there will be, though. So yes, hyper reality. It's a wide ranging concept and I was introduced to it thanks to a podcast called The Big Ideas, which basically summarises philosophies of different people (from Plato to Rousseau to Nietzsche to some lesser known people) in around ten to fifteen minutes. I recommend it to people for starting points on different philosophers. Anyway, one of the first ones I listened to was on a man called Guy Debord who had several theories on hyper reality. He even had a theses called The Society of the Spectacle (see full text here: http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_contents/4), which is an interesting read. I won't go too much into detail as it's more interesting to soak these things in direct from the source and discover them yourself rather than reading a poorly written summary from me. Examples of hyper reality include: Mass media concentration on freak events, making them seem more common than they are - intensified concentration and exposure to a certain issue can lead the public to a distorted view of the norms in society (for example if the media decides to cover all dog attacks and not focus on rape, those watching the news tend to overestimate the amount of dog attacks that are taking place in the country, and underestimate the amount of rape within a country simply because that is what they are exposed to). In the UK a dangerous dogs act was established in law due to high media coverage of dog attacks on toddlers even though the numbers of such attacks had remained the same for decades. It was seen as a new phenomenon which required dealing with immediately. Increase in technology and screens which separates the user from the actual experience. Add to this photoshopping of media images which further alienates the reader from reality. Fetishisation of capitalist goods used to detract people away and leading them to seek happiness in commodities rather than well being. This is also tied in with sex as a commodity (something which can be acquired through capitalism), in which if you buy a certain product or participate in a certain diet you will get the girl/boy, etc. Nature designed, for example a park or a garden. A place that has been constructed to resemble nature but is co-ordinated. Anyway, I was wondering if anybody had anything to share on the topic. The positive effects of hyper reality, the negative effects, things that have not been discussed here (social media, for example), the examples that most annoy you. Anything really.

Sexually intriguing? Hmmm

Only joking.

You didn't, but a Carrie did.

Please leave the lounge.

I'm not up for a debate. Just don't understand his motives.

It will look like a cross between Einstein and Churchill, as all babies do.

There are no lower ends in the gender spectrum.

I'm simply trying to determine his motives. It has 15 replies. It's not Crests thread yet.

We can't even rise against the dismantling of our health service.

I watched that video when it was first posted on the BBC site (years ago) and forgot it was asking for people to do the questionnaire. I had misremembered it as just explaining some things about dancing. Anyway, it took me twenty minutes to find, then another five to watch, and when I got to the end I figured I'd post it since it took me so long to get it. I wonder what the results were.

Indeed, they have their critics. My reasoning for posting the article was more to generate discussion on housework than speak of the creators of the article. But it's all good for conversation as it tends to lead to important conversations on the theory of feminism, regardless.

I wish this wasn't a hidden poll.

It's not the solution. It's part of the solution. I really don't see why anybody would find it crazy. The option is still there and it is something that is free in the first place.

Well has it been peer reviewed and accepted as a scientific paper? I'd start there. That way the people who actually care about these things specifically (not saying that there won't be anybody here that does care about that) can find out about it. The fact it has gone through such rigorous analysis will add weight to the idea too and be more believable than some random person posting some random thing on some random forum.

The alcohol industry has been trading off the notion that wine is good for the heart for a long time here. When you look at the scientific evidence behind it, this stems from one paper which found that an eighth of a glass of wine a day showed benefits to males in their 40's and 50's. That is all. Not only a toxin, except for specifically to the heart and in that amount, but only for a very minor portion of society. This misconception has enabled a lot of people to drink in situations when perhaps they wouldn't if they knew the facts. Smoking gets a bad rap but alcohol is not far behind at all. Of course banning alcohol would be ridiculous (it's a cultural thing which does have social benefits, though not physical benefits) and I do still drink occasionally (and used to drink often - never to an extent where it was a problem: I didn't cut down because I had a problem, for example) so I don't hate it, but I genuinely hope in terms of advertising that it goes the same way as tobacco. It's a case of fully understanding what we are doing to our bodies and making it easier for people to abstain. It's a lot easier to abstain from smoking than it used to be (I'm talking decades and decades ago here). Right now if somebody doesn't drink it's seen as very strange.

Hopefully by implementing these things now, whilst not banning things, you will not follow in their footsteps. It's a slippery slope. My country needs more nudging on alcohol.

Well the opening post said it just wouldn't be on the table. It would only be available by request. People who want it will ask for it. Some people who would have had it had it been so easy to get will not have it, either because they don't think about it or because it will make the choice of having it an active decision. This is a good thing in my opinion. If it was banned then it would not be a good thing.

One thing you have to keep in mind is that this does not just come down to individuals owning a decision. The option of bread should still be there (and I'd be surprised if it wasn't) but these things go further. The children of these people will be genetically affected. We need to plan for the future and by doing it in a way that doesn't restrict choice but helps people make a healthier decision, then I don't see the problem. The developed world has a huge problem with obesity that it is not coping with. Small things like this could be crucial in curbing it.

If it is still available then there is no harm. These kind of things are called 'nudges'. They can be very popular. With how you described it is not a ban, so there is no real issue as far as I can see. Society needs help with these kind of things. Obesity is a problem. One thing I prefer in France over the UK is that you get water for the table automatically. It usually leads to me simply drinking water, therefore staying healthier. I have the option to buy other drinks, I have my choice, but since the water is there for free it seems fine. Where I live you have to request water, and though it is still free, you just end up ordering a fizzy drink or an orange juice or something else. You spend more money and it's not as healthy. Other examples of nudging are: Opt out organ donation - since many people don't bother signing up to it even though they would do if they had the motivation, some places introduce an opt out system, rather than an opt out. The choice isn't taken away and people have the option not to participate, but with the amount of organs we need it makes sense. Public toilet urinal cleanliness - I think it started in Europe, but they found that if you put an image of a fly in a urinal then cleanliness in the toilets improves dramatically. The visual stimulus gives the person something to focus their aim on. Speeding around corners - There are some people that use a technique to reduce speeding and therefore accidents. When you approach a corner in an area where it is possible to speed there are usually stripes at the side of the road to highlight the fact that a bend is coming. By making the stripes closer together it creates the illusion that you are speeding up and so the driver automatically slows to a speed slower than they would normally take the corner. It has reduced accidents and deaths significantly. Sorry if I didn't explain those things well, but basically, these things happen all the time and are often for the benefit of the people. The key is not to take the choice away from the person, but make it easier to do the right thing. I don't see why that is ridiculous.

A scottish word used mainly in glasgow meaning to always get drunk and flirt with women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7680000/7680799.stm

I'm sending my questions for ELS to Kat. Or one question, rather (I'll think of more later). I just thought of one and I don't want to forget it. Therefore I declare the questioning open!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUUANzSB2Uc]Antony and Lou Reed - Candy Says (Legendado) - YouTube[/ame]

It works for what it is. But yes, it's not a name I'd choose. I'm shit at choosing names mind, so I guess any of my suggestions would be worse regardless. They write for the New Statesman anyway. Think it's two women. Might be more.