Idle Thumbs 131: Real Life

[Nappi]

Yeah Chris, you should at least shave before you start criticizing the use of mobile phones as lighter substitutes.

[clyde]

If you can't tell the difference between "being there" and "digital" then what's the difference? What "quality" does real life hold over the ever improving digital experience?

I really enjoy this line of questioning.

Here are some potential reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine

[tegan]

Remember when people held up their backlit handhelds like lighters when The Minibosses played at the first PAX and it was novel and cute?

 

 

(I'm with Chris on this one)

[clyde]

Isn't there an obvious solution? Make cell-phone waving cool. The technology allows for a reality way cooler than lighters ever were. Someone will make an app where the cell-phone blinks in time with the music or does some Flaming Lips Zaireeka-style business with the speakers. Instead of failing with skeumorphism, embrace the strengths of the medium!

[Professor Video Games]

I think we're ignoring the fundamental issue here, and that is that holding up lighters during a concert is lame to begin with.

[Jake]

I think we're ignoring the fundamental issue here, and that is that holding up lighters during a concert is lame to begin with.

You did it! The foundation being built upon was rotten to begin with.

If you can't tell the difference between "being there" and "digital" then what's the difference? What "quality" does real life hold over the ever improving digital experience?

It's just weird to hear, because it's something in my sci-fi novel. Everyone lives in virtual reality, and it works out great, because really why wouldn't it? "I can't see real life!" Sure you can, a billion cameras look out on the world from every robotic device you could want. Cameras no different from your eyes, which are just biological cameras. There's no reason to trust them less than your own eyes. You can interact with the "real world" all you want, if you want.

What you describe IS an issue of trust. Putting a man made abstraction over the content that goes directly into your brain and then claiming that it's real life seems like about the most dangerous thing you could ever tell yourself. Your own eyes come with your body, the same as everyone else's. You don't have full control over them, the same as everyone else, but it's a guarantee that nobody else has control over what they see, or where they look, and nobody else can see through them. The world you describe is built to be the opposite -- one where your eyes are built by, maintained by, and therefore editorialized by a third party, under the (therefore inherently false) pretense of putting you in control of your sensory life experience. That seems like some sort of intense 1984-style doublespeak situation.

Sacrificing all privacy and the ability to be alone in the name of convenient access to a more personalized life (which is being passively, artificially limited and shaped by the goals of your chosen content provider) is everything wrong with the current crop of social network life filtering tools, so bringing that closer to direct control over how my brain actively perceives the world is about the worst thing I could imagine.

[JonCole]

The solution is that everyone waves their iPads at concerts. Very few things are more irritating to me than people taking pictures with their iPads at important functions (my favorites are like baptisms or weddings), so holding them up like lighters at concerts seems to be the natural progression of irritation and uncool.

 

On another note, Puzzles & Dragons also tells you to take breaks at random intervals. It's just one of their tooltips that seems to be in regular rotation, more so than other tooltips.

 

Finally, this episode felt hella GFW Radio. Chris fit Shawn Elliott's role perfectly in the conversation about Steam trading and virtual goods economy, it was really quite weird.

[clyde]

You did it! The foundation being built upon was rotten to begin with.

What you describe IS an issue of trust. Putting a man made abstraction over the content that goes directly into your brain and then claiming that it's real life seems like about the most dangerous thing you could ever tell yourself. Your own eyes come with your body, the same as everyone else's. You don't have full control over them, the same as everyone else, but it's a guarantee that nobody else has control over what they see, or where they look, and nobody else can see through them. The world you describe is built to be the opposite -- one where your eyes are built by, maintained by, and therefore editorialized by a third party, under the (therefore inherently false) pretense of putting you in control of your sensory life experience. That seems like some sort of intense 1984-style doublespeak situation.

Sacrificing all privacy and the ability to be alone in the name of convenient access to a more personalized life (which is being passively, artificially limited and shaped by the goals of your chosen content provider) is everything wrong with the current crop of social network life filtering tools, so bringing that closer to direct control over how my brain actively perceives the world is about the worst thing I could imagine.

You just described the perfect premise for a cyber-punk game. Choosing your content-provider could determine your perception of the actual events in the game, but you think it's an objective view.

[Zeusthecat]

Sacrificing all privacy and the ability to be alone in the name of convenient access to a more personalized life (which is being passively, artificially limited and shaped by the goals of your chosen content provider) is everything wrong with the current crop of social network life filtering tools, so bringing that closer to direct control over how my brain actively perceives the world is about the worst thing I could imagine.

 

Unless someone like Miyamoto is that content provider. That could be a dream come true (or a hellish nightmare).

[Merus]

You did it! The foundation being built upon was rotten to begin with.

 

This is what I was getting at with the hipster comment: it's gross to be dismissing something that lots of people freely choose to do, and dismissing it for specious, poorly-defined reasons. Plenty of people pull out the lighters/light-making devices and feel good enough about the shared experience that they've had that they try and replicate it, even when no-one carries lighters any more. Why is it lame? The fuck do you mean by lame? Aren't lame and cool fundamentally dishonest descriptors, trying to appeal to some non-existent tastemaking authority about what behaviour is and is not acceptable? What's cool changes on a dime - there was a brief moment there where Gangnam Style went from 'lame' to 'cool' and back to 'lame' again. Are you saying we're just talking about concert lightmakers on a bad day?

 

So, okay, let's substitute 'lame' for 'a thing I dislike', which is more honest. I still have a problem here, in that being in a room filled with other people obviously enjoying the same things you are enjoying is a core part of the appeal of a popular music concert. We are herd creatures, and respond to being part of a crowd - if you have ever been to a movie screening where the audience really gets into the movie then you'll know how much the audience adds to the experience. For music, it's easy to share your appreciation for a fast song with a strong beat in limited space (jump, headbang) but for a slow song, without a lot of energy, it's a lot harder. That's the problem the lightmakers solve. It's not about the act of holding up this thing that makes light, or it being expected behaviour at concerts (because people don't do it when they're not enjoying themselves), but as an expression of appreciation and fellowship, of becoming part of the whole, it's not a bad one.

[sclpls]

As a musician I gotta say that if someone really needs to feel the oneness with the crowd I would much rather they consume their illicit substance of choice rather than wave around a lighter app during a show. There's no way I could see something like that and interpret it as a sincere gesture.

[Twig]

Okay but let's just all agree that it is pretty lame.

 

it's gross to be dismissing something that lots of people freely choose to do

But lots of people choose to be dismissing something that lots of other people freely choose to do, so I'm not sure where to draw the line. What's gross even mean anymore?

 

Barf is gross, I guess. What else?

[Brannigan]

I am greatly offended.  I love when people barf while enjoying my work.

[Zeusthecat]

If it doesn't make you barf it isn't gross. Unless it makes you shit.

[Berzee]

I am greatly offended.  I love when people barf while enjoying my work.

 

>Berzee spits a smartphone out of his mouth.

>You notice the phone is displaying an image of some vomit. =(

[Brannigan]

I was going to be offended, but realized that pulling your phone out at an event is basically the modern version of vomiting. Bravo.

[clyde]

I love how I'm reading a phone-lighter debate on Idle Forums while the leggings-as-pants debate rages on Facebook.

Opinions; people got 'em.

[Zeusthecat]

I love how I'm reading a phone-lighter debate on Idle Forums while the leggings-as-pants debate rages on Facebook.

Opinions; people got 'em.

Wait, what? Leggings are very clearly a sub-classification of pants. They are not something you wear instead of pants, they are pants.

[Twig]

I was going to be offended, but realized that pulling your phone out at an event is basically the modern version of vomiting. Bravo.

Hahaha this one got me and I'm not even really sure why.

[Chris]

This is what I was getting at with the hipster comment: it's gross to be dismissing something that lots of people freely choose to do, and dismissing it for specious, poorly-defined reasons. Plenty of people pull out the lighters/light-making devices and feel good enough about the shared experience that they've had that they try and replicate it, even when no-one carries lighters any more. Why is it lame? The fuck do you mean by lame? Aren't lame and cool fundamentally dishonest descriptors, trying to appeal to some non-existent tastemaking authority about what behaviour is and is not acceptable? What's cool changes on a dime - there was a brief moment there where Gangnam Style went from 'lame' to 'cool' and back to 'lame' again. Are you saying we're just talking about concert lightmakers on a bad day?

 

So, okay, let's substitute 'lame' for 'a thing I dislike', which is more honest. I still have a problem here, in that being in a room filled with other people obviously enjoying the same things you are enjoying is a core part of the appeal of a popular music concert. We are herd creatures, and respond to being part of a crowd - if you have ever been to a movie screening where the audience really gets into the movie then you'll know how much the audience adds to the experience. For music, it's easy to share your appreciation for a fast song with a strong beat in limited space (jump, headbang) but for a slow song, without a lot of energy, it's a lot harder. That's the problem the lightmakers solve. It's not about the act of holding up this thing that makes light, or it being expected behaviour at concerts (because people don't do it when they're not enjoying themselves), but as an expression of appreciation and fellowship, of becoming part of the whole, it's not a bad one.

So having opinions about things is what makes someone a hipster...? If I had the same opinion but didn't live in San Francisco or wear glasses would it be fine, or the same? I don't buy the "you need to say 'in my opinion' at the end of every opinion" thing. I'm the one saying it so obviously I'm the one who dislikes it.

People taking out their phones and waving them around at a concert reminds me of the exact opposite of the point of a live music show. Your own opinion on the actual point itself is well stated, and obviously you disagree with me but I'm not going to cast aside the opinion I hold out of the shame of someone perceiving me as a hipster, which is something I barely know how to parse in the first place.

[Henroid]

On the one hand, the old-man that I am (I'm going to be 29 in a couple months) thinks the cell-phones-at-concerts thing is really lame. It isn't cool, nor is it any sort of statement about the times changing.

 

On the other hand, I'd rather people wave those around than wave lighters around, because lighters imply they have something to light and things being smoked irritates me (physically, not like a judgment).

 

I am torn!

[chummer]

Is this still the pinnacle of ragequitting?

 

I don't know where, but I've seen this video before and it has stuck with me. It's this exact one that I think of when I hear the word "ragequitting" (including during this episode) b/c the poor guy looks like he has genuine anger issues.

 

Anywho, hope that dude figured his shit out.

[Merus]

So having opinions about things is what makes someone a hipster...? If I had the same opinion but didn't live in San Francisco or wear glasses would it be fine, or the same? I don't buy the "you need to say 'in my opinion' at the end of every opinion" thing. I'm the one saying it so obviously I'm the one who dislikes it.

People taking out their phones and waving them around at a concert reminds me of the exact opposite of the point of a live music show. Your own opinion on the actual point itself is well stated, and obviously you disagree with me but I'm not going to cast aside the opinion I hold out of the shame of someone perceiving me as a hipster, which is something I barely know how to parse in the first place.

 

The thing that actually upset me was the casting judgement on the quality of other people's fun, which is something that I associate with someone who is intensely invested in whether or not other people see them as authentic, and are quick to disdain things in the vain hope that this is what makes one authentic. Right now we call these people hipsters; they have had many names. The beard and San Francisco and podcast was me having fun stuffing as many stereotypical 'hipster' things into one sentence as possible, which was intended as gentle teasing but maybe didn't come off that way because it was gentle teasing wrapped around a sharp point? Or possible it was a little esoteric. Anyway, please don't shave or move to Seattle on my account.

 

I'd argue that the point of a live music show is not just to see the act performing - going to see an act perform and being the only ones there feels disappointing. I think an audience is as much a part of the point as the act.

[clyde]

Wait, what? Leggings are very clearly a sub-classification of pants. They are not something you wear instead of pants, they are pants.

Most people in the Facebook-debate agree with you. My confusion is whether or not the people wearing them realize that leggings become see-through when stretched. When a bicylist wearing leggings rides past me, I can't tell if they are a heroic exhibitionist or simply unaware that I can see the difference in color between their skin and their thong.

For me, it's similar to when someone gets out if their car and walks into the store with their headlights on. Do they know their headlights are on? I don't want to bother them for living dangerously, but the thought that they may be unknowingly killing their car-battery awakens my sense of duty to others.

[Problem Machine]

It's a lot easier to tactfully point out to someone that their headlights are on than that you can see their butt. For me, anyway.