Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When the technology gets more advanced, I can imagine problems emerging for a much larger portion of the public at large. If the avatar cult is a sign of anything, it may be that the future holds very convincing 'alternate realities', that are easily accessible.

I am of the opinion that within my lifetime, advancements in all of the involved industries, will surpass that of even the most surreal sci-fi flicks. I always thought a lot about Blade Runner, GiaS stuff. Bionics and the like, we are currently able to restore some level of sight to those who lack it; albeit at a huge cost.

As we evolve to cope with the ever increasing involvement in our world as a whole(which is what I feel is happening now), people will develop ways to get around most negative aspects of the change. Who know though, maybe the internet is skynet, and it will be the thing to destroy us, along with our fragile little brains.

dogma wrote:On the one hand it seems irrational to believe that the presence of computers suddenly injected sexual deviance into the human condition.

dogma wrote:When those consequences are removed, and alternative communities can be established, it becomes much easier for people to give into their taboo desires.

Agreed but what of the substance of that taboo?

Manchu wrote:

That apple is such a whore. Does it ever wear a bra?



Meanwhile, I wrote out a big rambling thing, got annoyed with how incoherent it was and then saw dogma pretty much nailed the topic in a few lines.

sebster wrote:That apple is such a whore. Does it ever wear a bra?

That missing space is from where Eve bit into it.

Wrexasaur wrote:As we evolve to cope with the ever increasing involvement in our world as a whole(which is what I feel is happening now), people will develop ways to get around most negative aspects of the change. Who know though, maybe the internet is skynet, and it will be the thing to destroy us, along with our fragile little brains.

I think people how much or how little difference there is between the real world and the fantasy is less to do with technology and more to do with how intent we are on seeing or ignoring those differences. I linked to those crazy folk that think they have the Na'vi souls, but they're just a new version of a group of crazies who've been around for a long time, otherkin, who think they've got the souls of dragons, elves, wolves and all kinds of things. Half of them end up identifying with fantasy creatures written up exactly like it is in the D&D Monster Manual, which is about as low tech as things get.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:That missing space is from where Eve bit into it.

Yeah, but does that really mean anything in terms of deviancy having been around long before the internet?

sebster wrote:Yeah, but does that really mean anything in terms of deviancy having been around long before the internet?

Turns out my biblical joke was pretty lame. To be fair, it was directed at the son of a preacher man.

Well, the Apple logo looks pretty deviant if you ask me...

Manchu wrote:Agreed but what of the substance of that taboo?

Well, the relativist in me wants to say that taboos are what we make them, and that something which has become increasingly normalized will naturally lose its taboo status. Homosexuality is a good example of this, as are things like divorce, not keeping the Sabbath, and premarital sex. However, most social taboos were grounded in practical reality of the time in which they originated, and some continue to have a similar, though reduced, relevance today (notably those related to sex). I don't think we can outright discard social taboos, but we should revisit them when people start violating them on a widespread basis.

I think that on reflection we will quickly discover that the original justification for certain taboos has vanished over time. I also think that, in many of those cases, we will just as quickly replace the former justification with a new one. Ahtman's comment about putting potentially sensitive information onto a permanent, public source of information is a prime example of this. It used to be a bad idea to parade around naked because doing so put you (especially if female) at increased risk of sexual assault, or generally negative repercussions. Now both of those issues have generally lessened to due anonymity provided by the sheer volume of information at all of our fingertips, while also being made significantly less predictable, and therefore unwise.

I was thinking more about it as an attack on the dignity of the human person.

I don't attach much value to the concept of dignity except as an extension of social norms. Essentially, an attack would be made on a person's dignity if a piece of information were to be presented in a context where it might be damaging.

Out someone as a homosexual at an office party, and its a significant attack on their dignity. Out them at a gay bar, and its a lesser one.

As far as CW goes, I'm inclined to say that, while and individual can attack his own dignity, doing so need not be problematic as there's no reason that any given person must value their dignity. If that information is later presented in separate context, it would be an independent attack on the creator's dignity. The obvious caveats here are awareness and intent; especially with respect to actions between minors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Turns out my biblical joke was pretty lame. To be fair, it was directed at the son of a preacher man.

I did get it, though not immediately. I'm a bad Christian derivative.

Human dignity, as I'm using it, refers to a non-waivable right. It's also grounded in a religious context so I guess there's no point in discussing it further.

I think there's a point where things are simply base, or vulgar. A bunch of people on a web forum yelling at a girl to flash her boobs is certainly pretty base, as is a girl flashing her boobs to random strangers on the internet.

But we're a complicated bunch, capable of great sophistication one moment, only to follow it up with something utterly basic. To me, it's only a problem when that kind of base action is dominant in a person's life.

I didn't mean to allude that dignity can be waived. Only that its specific meaning varies significantly from context, to context. I would also probably add that there are certain things which would be considered attacks on one's dignity in any conceivable, human context. Though I don't believe there are many.

The conscience is universal. Therefore, there is no need for a positivist definition of some (trans- or pan-cultural) affront to dignity. My question is, for everyone in this thread, does camwhoring strike you as wrong? And if so, how would you articulate that? Dogma, you're a great one for rationalizing both sentiments and values into narratives of human practicality. Sebster already did much the same by bringing up the way such photos could follow the CW for the rest of their lives. But my hunch here is that there is something more to it, something objectively depraved, that involves demeaning everyone who participates. At the same time, the root of it all seems to me very natural and even healthy--the desire to communicate, to share, to shore one another up in our basic need for community. Without getting to far into it, this is what I see as the fallen state of the world: that morality is no simple competition between good and bad but that good and bad exist comingled but at the same time irreconcilable in every instance of moral significance.

Manchu wrote:The conscience is universal. Therefore, there is no need for a positivist definition of some (trans- or pan-cultural) affront to dignity. My question is, for everyone in this thread, does camwhoring strike you as wrong?

As something that a girl does once or twice in experimentation, it isn't wrong in my book. It might be something she regrets down the line or not, but not necessarily.
As something that a girl does after coming to the realisation that being watched is part of her sexual make up, that she keeps control of and does on her own terms so that it features in her life to the extent that she is happy with, it isn't wrong in my book.
As something that a girl is pressured into by active or passive pressure from specific people or society at large, it is wrong in my book. And no, I don't think people on the internet posting 'tits or gtfo' counts as pressure.

Point is, if the girl is exploring her sexuality on her own terms I can't see it as wrong. It might be base, and I don't think people should fill their lives with nothing but basic things, but in the right quantities it ain't so bad.

Manchu wrote:The conscience is universal. Therefore, there is no need for a positivist definition of some (trans- or pan-cultural) affront to dignity.

That's where I guessed you were coming from. That will most likely be an irreconcilable difference between us, based on my denial of the first claim. To my mind the conscience is universal (barring certain neurological conditions), but not uniform.

Manchu wrote:
My question is, for everyone in this thread, does camwhoring strike you as wrong? And if so, how would you articulate that? Dogma, you're a great one for rationalizing both sentiments and values into narratives of human practicality.

I would say no, but I think you already knew that.

Manchu wrote:
Without getting to far into it, this is what I see as the fallen state of the world: that morality is no simple competition between good and bad but that good and bad exist comingled but at the same time irreconcilable in every instance of moral significance.

I would agree with that in the sense that social complexity inevitably renders moral clarity more difficult to achieve.

dogma wrote:To my mind the conscience is universal (barring certain neurological conditions), but not uniform.

Just based on this statement as it is, I think we agree entirely.

dogma wrote:

Manchu wrote:Without getting to far into it, this is what I see as the fallen state of the world: that morality is no simple competition between good and bad but that good and bad exist comingled but at the same time irreconcilable in every instance of moral significance.

I would agree with that in the sense that social complexity inevitably renders moral clarity more difficult to achieve.

I dunno about social complexity being the stumbling block. It seems to me that moral clarity is a divine rather than human perogative, i.e., something that we can--at best--very poorly approximate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:Point is, if the girl is exploring her sexuality on her own terms I can't see it as wrong. It might be base, and I don't think people should fill their lives with nothing but basic things, but in the right quantities it ain't so bad.

This is what I would consider the best-case scenario. Too bad even this apparently innocent activity is mired in the depredations of moral reality. If only Nabokov were still alive.

I don't think that camwhoring is creating something new in the human psyche. I think that by and large humans are still pretty much as they always were, just with more free time on their hands. The internet and other new technologies simply allow these behaviors and desires to be expressed in new and different ways.

In the case of the camwhore its just a new version of the attention whore. A type of person who's existed since Grog just could not shut the up about how he managed to shoot that mammoth with an arrow.

Think about the attention whore 100 years ago, what could they do? Well the only people they could really garner attention from were the ones physically close to them. Friends, neighbors, family. This limited the ways you could get attention, after all you had to deal with these people after you had their attention. So the attention whore might dress well, maybe a touch provocatively, maybe they brag a lot or are just extroverted.

Now come forward to today. Thanks to the internet all an attention whore has to do is post a picture on 4chan and suddenly have the attention of hundred if not thousands of people. Given the going rate on /b/ keeping that audience means tits or GTFO but hey, its the internet. The camwhore will never likely be seen by anyone who knows them. They can go on, satisfy their urge for attention, then walk away unlikely to ever have to deal with the reprecussions. They'll do ever more outrageous things because it's attention and they believe they'll never have to deal with the consequences ever again.

Give Grog a webcam and an audience and I'd bet money he'd eventually whip his junk out and Grog's clan mates would be egging him on.

LunaHound wrote:So... wrex and manchu lurks /b/ for porn -_-?

Given the other boards on 4chan /b/ is one of the worst places to lurk for porn.

Manchu wrote:My question is, for everyone in this thread, does camwhoring strike you as wrong? And if so, how would you articulate that? ... But my hunch here is that there is something more to it, something objectively depraved, that involves demeaning everyone who participates.

I just can't care. Both the camwhore and their audience participate of their own free while. Is it demeaning, I'd say yes but the people involved chose to demean themselves. If they want to participate, fine, go for it. Is it wrong? Probably, its not an activity who's loss would be a negative on society that's for sure. It certainly demonstrates that on the whore's part they have no real consideration of their own worth. On the cheering audience's part it shows that they hold the camwhore to be of little worth. However that's everyone involved's choice. I'd be more concerned about the deeper issues that bring a camwhore to that place in their life than the activity itself. I would classify it as a symptom not an actual problem.

Tyyr wrote:Give Grog a webcam and an audience and I'd bet money he'd eventually whip his junk out and Grog's clan mates would be egging him on.

Just to be clear, we'r talking about hypothetical caveman Grog and not General Grog, right?

Ya know, it could probably be an either/or kind or thing.

But yes, Grog the hypothetical attention whore caveman.

Good. While I like his animated kitten-plays-guitar avatar, I would be pleased if GG did not "deliver."

So long as he doesn't have a web cam you're good.

I'm now also concerned about his clan.

What makes 4chan even worth going to? I've seen a lot written about on these boards, but it always seems to be in relation to nudie or gross pictures. Being a father, it's definitely something I wouldn't want my kids surfing if half of what I read about it is true.

Trying to understand what makes anything appealing to the youth is complicated. There's more to 4chan than porn and gore--that is a big part of it, no doubt, but I think it's more about rebellion, freedom, etc. You know, the usual suspects.

Relapse wrote:What makes 4chan even worth going to? I've seen a lot written about on these boards, but it always seems to be in relation to nudie or gross pictures. Being a father, it's definitely something I wouldn't want my kids surfing if half of what I read about it is true.

You just need to stay out of /B/ and /Gif/ if you want to be safe.
What makes 4chan good? The seemly unlimited source of w/e you are looking for.

/anime/ + /cute/ if you want to know about the popular or current anime
/mecha/ if you need some inspiration for sci-fi conversions
/cosplay/ if you are interested in creating costumes or seeing what others made
/animal and nature / it used to be interesting till people finds it fun to post spider pictures
/TG/ Excellent source of fantasy / warhammer related materials
/Cooking / Paper Craft Origami / Photography they all have experts that are actually good at this and always lending a helping hand.
/Toys/ sometimes i go there to see if people find good cheap toys good for conversions
/R/ where do you think pdf codex gets leaked from?

Basically sure, there are tons of awful things in /B/ but who ever says you have to go there?

Good point, Luna. But wouldn't you say /b/ is the most popular board? I thought Relapse's question was ultimately directed at why kids loved /b/ so much (even if he didn't know it was called /b/, I think he was referencing the most famous part).

Relapse wrote:What makes 4chan even worth going to? I've seen a lot written about on these boards, but it always seems to be in relation to nudie or gross pictures. Being a father, it's definitely something I wouldn't want my kids surfing if half of what I read about it is true.

Put simply:
4chan isn't worth going to. It's full of the malcontents and dregs of the Internet.

It's basically like Las Vegas.

Manchu wrote:Good point, Luna. But wouldn't you say /b/ is the most popular board? I thought Relapse's question was ultimately directed at why kids loved /b/ so much (even if he didn't know it was called /b/, I think he was referencing the most famous part).

Im not sure if its popular as i dont know the stats of the board to asses it.
But if you mean infamous then yes it certainly is.

I wouldnt say 4chan is malcontent and such , i would say its just humans doing what they do , with less or no moderation.

In a sense , its no different than comparing Dakka to Warseer .

LunaHound wrote:I wouldnt say 4chan is malcontent and such , i would say its just humans doing what they do , with less or no moderation.

That right there is the secret of its success.