100-percent-blender

[100-percent-blender]

Lori Goodman, executive director of Isla Vista Youth Projects, shares her experience on iconic game show

[100-percent-blender]

#5: The Concept of Bronies

I am not oppressed. I am a white, straight, middle class college-age male in University. Even if I don’t conform to every aspect of society, I am not oppressed. I like Pokémon, and some people think I’m too old for it. I don’t care, I can still enjoy Pokémon. I have no need to make a big deal about mylove of Pokémon because others might say I’m too old for it. Some others, in my situation, would instead take this as an opportunity to create their own oppression. Why would anyone who lacks oppression want to make their own? So that they have something allowing them to fight against societal norms? American White Male Society: the only place where people don’t feel oppressed enough!

Now, before I enter the meat of the situation, let me get one thing straight: I do not hate Bronies, and I don’t think all Bronies fit the idea I’m about to describe. What I hate is the concept of Bronies. Do you like My Little Pony? Do you happen to not fit the intended audience? Are you an adult white male? I have no problem with you. What I have a problem with is “Bronies.”

What is a Brony? According to Urban Dictionary:

“A name typically given to the male viewers/fans (whether they are straight, gay, bisexual, etc.) of the My Little Pony show or franchise. They typically do not give in to the hype that males aren't allowed to enjoy things that may be intended for females [or younger audiences].”

Ok. But why does it need a name? Yes, other shows have their own fandoms. Doctor Who has Whovians, Star Trek has Trekkies, Glee has Gleeks. The issue is that these are all-inclusive fandom names. Brony specifically refers to male fans above the targeted age range. No other show I know of has such a thing. For instance: I like the Powerpuff girls. This does not mean I am a “Powerpuff MAN.” I think it’s a good show, and I am thus a fan of the show. I don’t need a special group because the show’s not aimed for me. A good TV show, even a cartoon, is made so that anyone can enjoy it. Parents, for example, should be able to enjoy what their kids are watching. For some reason, however, Bronies (when I say Bronies, I mean a specific subset, not every one) think they need to be special. They think they’re the only ones who like something where they’re not the intended audience.  They think society is saying no to this. It’s not.

A group that is oppressed: gay people. They have fewer rights than straight people, especially in terms of marriage, and are openly shunned by a large part of society. If you’re not in an accepting community and you are gay, you face one of two options. Either you hold it in, hiding it from others and often leading to depression, or you “come out.” Coming out can have many consequences, from acceptance to refusal to outright disownment by your parents. This is the harsh world we live in. It’s scary to reveal a secret about yourself that could change how everyone views you for the rest of your life, could separate you from those you love, could lead to being shunned by society. If you are a Brony, your father will not disown you. Your friends will not shun you. No one cares if you’re a Brony.

I have seen so many of my friends, when Bronies were a new thing, having their own “coming out.” This is what annoys me about Bronies. They have this view that age range and target audience is a form of societal oppression, that they need to team up with this subset of fans to prove to society that it’s ok, that they are not being accepted. Society is telling them through the intended audience of My Little Pony that they will be rejected, and they don’t want that to happen. Except it’s not happening, because no one cares. You like to watch My Little Pony? I like Powerpuff Girls. They’re both well written shows, no need to make it your life. Some people are dicks and will make fun of you and be mean to you, but those people are few and far between. In fact, much of the annoyance at Bronies is not from the fact that they like My Little Pony, but from the fact that they make such a big deal out of it. People enjoy things that aren’t intended for them all the time, and nobody cares. It’s not if they didn’t know (still in the Brony closet) they wouldn’t care, it’s that they only care because you burst out screaming at the top of your lungs directly in their ear. Let’s say at a party there’s pizza, a vegan pizza and 3 or 4 pepperoni. In this example, I prefer vegan pizza to pepperoni despite not being a vegan. After all those who need the vegan pizza have some, I take a slice. Would it be a problem? No, as long as I’m not taking pizza away from those who can’t have anything else, there’s no issue. Now, retcon that to me shouting at the top of my lungs, shoving the pizza in peoples faces shouting “I LIKE VEGAN PIZZA DESPITE NOT BEING A VEGAN!” People don’t care, but they’d hate me because I’m an asshole about it. Note to the Bronies: people don’t hate that you like My Little Pony, they hate that you won’t shut up and stop shoving it in our faces.

To sum things up: I don’t hate Bronies, I hate the concept of Bronies. You don’t have to hide it, and there’s no problem with being part of a community that shares the same interest. Just don’t create your own oppression by forcing people to hate you because you shove your Pinkie Pie in their faces. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go hide in a corner of the internet where the Bronies can’t find me.

[100-percent-blender]

#4: Free-to-Play Games

Candy Crush has now released a sequel: Soda Saga. Farmville has one too: Country Escape. Plants vs Zombies now has PvZ 2: It’s about time,which unlike the first game is Free to Play. Yes, these games were popular, but why do they need sequels? Candy Crush was constantly updated with new levels. Farmville had new animals and additions all the time. Why do we need sequels for these games? They’re no Mario, Zelda, Pokémon, Portal, Half Life or Halo! What story do they have to expand on? What different feature can they add that can’t be placed in a simple update to the original?

 These are simply a few of the problems I have with Free-to-Play games. I, as you may or may not know, am an aspiring game designer. Free-to-Play (or FtP) games are one of the most infuriating additions to the gaming world. I hate them with a passion, yet not for the reason you might think. I don’t hate them because they’re a bad idea. I hate them because they’re genius.

First of all, they’re fairly simple. Most are just a minigame dressed up as a game. Add a new mechanic every twenty levels or so and you’re good. The problem is, while this is technically a game, it is not really a game among the standards of the other great pieces out there. It’s one action you learn and do over and over. While this may have been popular with, say, Tetris, we have capabilities now to where they sell them in bundles, and the bundles are completed and ready to play. There’s another problem: the creators don’t even finish making the games before releasing them. Unlike most games, which experience rigorous bug-testing. While these games are at least playable upon release, they use the public as unsuspecting beta-testers. They wait for the bug reports to come in and fix them, and people can’t complain since they didn’t pay for the game. Yet, sometimes, they do.

 Microtransactions. Little in-app purchases that prey on the mind of the weak. The game doesn’t “officially” cost anything, so people get invested. That’s when they get into something too hard, but it’s too late. They want, nay, they NEED to keep playing. 1 dollar for 5 extra lives? Sure, I didn’t pay anything for the game anyway. What people don’t realize is, it adds up. This doesn’t apply to strong-willed people who scoff at microtransactions and can easily put the game down, but preys on the stupid. Sometimes, as with Farmville, they use charity as a front. Buy a Hurricane Cow for 1 dollar, and we’ll donate 10% to Hurricane victims! It doesn’t cost them anything to give one person an extra cow, so why not just donate 50% to hurricane victims? Because that would mean they would have to actually care, instead of simply caring about the money. I’d rather just donate that dollar straight to the charity instead.

 The main problem is, I want a full game. I don’t want to buy it in bits and pieces, getting fixed over time and adding on more levels with every five bucks I shovel over. If they had an option to pay 5, even 10 dollars for some games to eliminate all ads, microtransactions and waiting, I’d do it. But they don’t, because these games only have one thing in mind: money. I’ll take a step back to the waiting. Waiting is not good game design. If to read a book you had to walk around your house or wait 30 minutes after every page, and could stack that up for only five pages at a time, you’d be sick of it! So why do we think it’s smart to make games that make you wait? Zelda? Mario? I buy the game, I can play it as much as I want. It takes time to beat the game, sure, but I’m not forced to stop playing the game that I paid for. You may think the reason they do this is to keep people from getting addicted and playing too much, but it’s the exact opposite. These games are designed, neurologically, to addict. A short lesson on addiction: let’s take soda, for example. You drink one soda a week, your brain releases dopamine, which makes you happy. Suddenly, you become used to it, as your brain releases less dopamine than before. To get that same kick, you need to do it more often. Soon enough, you have one a day or more. Free-to-Play games follow this model, with easy first levels that get you wanting to play, then making you spend more and more time on each level. With most things, you’d overdo it until you don’t get the pleasure from it anymore and move on. These games force you to wait so that you don’t lower on dopamine from having it too much. It keeps you invested, yes, but it’s an artificial investment. You think you’re having fun, but you’re just addicted to a minigame that’s unfinished and made not for your enjoyment, but to make money.

 That’s really my point here. A game, yes, is made to make money. It is a business. COD makes money, Mario makes money, Indy games make money, and the developers wouldn’t make them if they didn’t. But with larger games, time and care is put into them. They want the user to get their money’s worth. The gamer’s not going to play your game, not going to even pay for it if it’s not enjoyable. Yet a free to play game? Try it out; you don’t need to drop a cent. Except they get ad revenue from the moment it opens, and even if you’re not enjoying it you may get invested. Maybe you want a new animal in Crossy Road, or to beat your friend’s high score in Two Dots. The gameplay isn’t good, but the way it’s presented just makes it so you want more. Suddenly you buy some extra lives and you’re in it for the long haul. I know because I’ve been there, sans the actually buying things in-game. I’ve gotten Candy Crush to beat it without playing, Two Dots to beat my friend’s high score, and Farmville to check it out before later having to cut it off cold-turkey (unfortunately, not before spreading the Farmvirus to my mom). The problem is, these games are not made with gameplay or user enjoyment in mind, it’s all about the money. It’s made in a genius way to get people to keep playing and paying, taking people away from quality games that deserve recognition to a world of cheap enjoyment, waiting, and microtransactions.

 The industry will last. Sequels will be made. They’ll make money fast. Games will be played. So, that’s what I hate about Free-to-Play games. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go try out Nintendo’s attempt at FtP. Let’s see how f***ed up they’ve gotten.

[100-percent-blender]

#3: 5 Things I Hate About V-Day

Ah, Valentine's Day. The day to tell everyone how much you love them. The day kids give cards to everyone in their class. The worst idea for a holiday since that one that I believe celebrates gophers. Whacking day? I don't know. Anyway, Valentine's Day, despite its problems, is defended by most simply because of the fact that they've grown up with it. A lot of the problem with society is people tend to defend things simply because they're used to them, picking out the reasons they like it without looking objectively at the thing their defending. V-day is a perfect example of this. We grow up forced to celebrate it and see in integrated as a part of society, but shouldn't we really think if it's worth it? Couldn't there be some problems with Valentine's day? Well, fret not, I have the answer. -s. So here we go, 5 reasons Valentine's Day should not be a thing.

1) It's a Holiday

Now, I can see where people would start to pick apart my argument here. "Of course it's a holiday. Plus, that could be an argument against any holiday." True, but not true. The fact that it's a holiday means everyone celebrates it on the same day. For a day that normally consists of people going out to eat or going to a special location, having it on the same day as everyone else causes stress and problems. Maybe we could have it spread out? Do something where you average the months of you and your significant other's (SO) birthday and celebrate it then? Or just celebrate it a week early or late, avoid the rush and still have enjoyment with your SO. But the real problem is that...

2) It has a date

This is a problem I have with both V-Day AND Anniversaries. In our society, we've created an arbitrary system of time and numbers, so years are for some reason important, and the same goes for things like the number "100." Why do we care about these things? Somebody told us to. The fact that we base when we do romantic gestures around arbitrary amounts of time is saddening. A relationship should be about spontaneity, never knowing when your SO will do a romantic gesture. First of all, having these dates makes it expected that your SO will do something, and that expectation can kill off romance in a relationship. It can also keep it going, but if the only reason you or your SO are romantic is for special arbitrary days, the relationship is probably not meant to be. People should just be romantic because they feel like making their SO happy, not because a random day dictates "it's the time of year I need to show him/her I love him/her." Now doesn't that sound silly.

3) It's created "Single's Awareness Day"

Acronym for this: SAD. There is nothing wrong with being single. Many even find it a very attractive quality! It can be by choice or not, but there is nothing bad about it. Having a national holiday based around love, though, shames those who have for one reason or another not ended up in a relationship. If it was just people being romantic when they wanted to, as I suggested earlier, singles could go about their merry ways without caring that they're not in a relationship. You don't need to be in one to be happy, yet V-Day states otherwise, and that's just unnecessary. It's created a holiday with a requirement (MUST NOT BE SINGLE TO ENTER), which is not a good idea. It's exclusionary. And you can't really avoid it because of...

4) Commercialization

Problem here with most holidays. The stores get into it, and it's unavoidable. Why does everywhere need to have heart-shaped everything? The holiday can be celebrated by simply having a good time with your SO. Go to a park? Cook them a nice dinner? It doesn't need to involve commercialization, yet, like most holidays, it's advertised to the brink of insanity. WE CAN JUST HAVE A NICE EVENING TOGETHER, (insert every single store in existence here), WE DON'T NEED YOU!

5) Arguments against it are ludicrous

"We've always done it": Change. Look it up. We used to always have slaves, but look where we all now.

"The stress is a part of it"/"I like the stress": Holidays should be a day for people to get together with friends, family or loved ones and have a good time. Stress should not be a necessary part of ANY holiday, especially one about enjoying spending time with someone you love.

"It encourages love": If the love's not there, it's not there. It encourages relationship life-support. If you're in a happy relationship, you should have romance no matter the day.

Really, Valentine's day is an unnecessary staple on our society's platter of holidays. Without it, people could still be romantic, singles can stay blissfully oblivious, and with spontaneous gestures of romance people would be overall happier. But hey, that's simply my opinion, you're free to have your own. If you have reasons for it, I'll be sure to take them down, and if I can't, you win. That, my good sirs and madams, is why I hate Valentine's Day.

QUESTION: Have any good reasons for it?

[100-percent-blender]

#2: Instant Winner Society

As kids, we dream and aspire to do what we know. We knowwhat we see, what we hear about, what is important in our lives. Thus,everything in our lives becomes a factor in our thoughts of the future. Manychildren aspire to do the same job as their mom or dad. Many children see news of people doing amazing feats, so they aspire to become astronauts, police, or firemen. Teachers also play a big roll in our lives, so many children simply wish to end up teaching. We read, thus we wish to write. We play, thus we wish to make. We learn, thus we wish to use it for something grand. Now, these aspirations are awesome. They create the desire to do great things, and even if people don’t end up pursuing their initial hopes, the skills they learn are still useful in many other fields. People can still do amazing things. That is, if it weren’t for one thing.

Entertainment. In entertainment, you don’t necessarily apply for a job like any other job. You get “discovered.” This is for sports, movies, TV, really anything that people consume regularly, and that’s just it. While roles like teachers and parents play a huge role in kids lives, what many children grow up with is TV as it becomes more and more ubiquitous. I'm not talking about screenwriting or directing or any of the behind-the-scenes stuff that requires tons of work, study and training. I'm talking about acting and being in the limelight. Because of this, many children aspire to become athletes, movie stars, famous for who they are, and that’s really not likely. We see these people on TV because they got lucky, they scratched the lotto ticket and won. Either they were born into it, looked good enough or just ended up getting picked up, but it’s not the majority of people that get to do this lucrative job we have in society. Yet kids believe that they can get to be the next (Football player) or (Actress), because they see it so often that it’s blown out of proportion of how attainable the goal really is. It’s created an “instant winner” mentality: people just have to notice my talent and then I’ll be world famous! It creates false hope for a lot of people, and while it on rare occasions can pay out, it does not often lead to many skills that are useful elsewhere.

The “instant winner” mentality has been both helped and harmed by the introduction of YouTube. With YouTube and online media, “anyone” can be famous. You no longer need to be “found,” just begin putting videos up. People can self produce their own entertainment! This, in one hand, is great. People learn video editing, writing, and other skills alongside acting or comedy that can be very useful elsewhere. Yet, despite it being easier to share your talents, you still need to be “found.” Instead of Talent Scouts finding you, however, it’s the public. Now, like “Alex From Target,” a random guy who blew up on the Internet recently, it seems easier than ever to just become famous, but this only pushes the “instant winner” mentality further. On TV and Movies, we had actors, actresses, stars, people who were beyond our comprehension and could not be reached by mortal hands. On youtube? We see average Joes, like ourselves, who were able to find the golden ticket and reach their own goals. While that is great for them, it makes the far-off goal seem more plausible, and maybe it is, but not as much as it looks. I don’t mean to be too cynical, as it’s perfectly fine to reach for your dreams, but the way we have life set up right now, we force dreams upon people that aren’t always something they can really attain. People can’t just grow up believing that they’ll one day become famous and that will be that. We need to show kids that they’re more out there they could dream to be than simply entertainment. While they could be the next “PewDiePie,” they should still try as well to create their own greatness and pave new paths in other fields.

And that is what I hate about society today. What I hate about society tomorrow? Stay tuned.

[100-percent-blender]

You Know What I Hate #1: Technological Advancement

Technology is a tricky topic, pardon my alliteration. There are people on all sides of the spectrum: what's good, what's not, too advanced, not advanced enough, and how it effects the world. I have friends who get new technology the moment it comes out (such as my friend with Apple or me with Nintendo) and other friends who don't get things until they're obsolete, and who believe the old methods are the best methods. While I fall into some of these categories, I hate myself for it. This can be widened to a hatred of extremism in anything that's not really that important. On the one hand, technology is made to make tasks easier and help guide society down new, improved paths. While older products may be made more reliably, each update comes with new functionality with which you can't say the product isn't improved. It's not a bad thing to have new technology at the rate we get it. Frequent new products are useful, although it would be good if products took a bit more time and focus in development. On the other side of the spectrum, all technology has a period of grace, as I'll call it. Technology takes a while to be fully fleshed out, to have all the functionality it needs and be fully understood and tested. Unless you're a developer, you shouldn't need the latest iPhone or console on day one. Why would someone need an apple watch before anything good's been made for it or before any real user reviews come out? Why would you buy a game console without games or players? People need to stay relatively current, but they also need to learn patience. Yes, people can enjoy what they want, but people should be smart about it. The technology we have today is still a new idea, society needs to take time to take a step back and really think about what they get into with each purchase. But it's so new we don't necessarily know how to deal with it yet, which is why every advancement in technology leads to so many bad decisions. It's not much, but that is why I hate technological advancement (or simply how people deal with and react to it).