Prison Architect

[Wingflier]

I realize that the Trojan War is a fictional event, but the simple fact that it was conceived and has survived the centuries speaks volumes to its appeal.

Right, and what other stories have survived the centuries?  Oh, the story about a benevolent God who floods the entire world because the people HE MADE were being disobedient.

Yes, there's loads to learn from that.

What about the story of a prophet (Muhammad) who rapes 9 year old girls and makes them his wife?  This story has been much more lasting and relevant than yours.

I wouldn't assume that just because a story has lasted through the ages that it has a positive or even relevant message.

Maybe I misunderstand your meaning of the sexualization of women.  To me, there is not much difference between the objectification of women and natural sexual behavior - the latter causing the former.

There isn't much difference, but in the latter it doesn't take effor to do so, because it's our natural human instinct (as male) to look at females as sex objects.  Part of a civilized society is getting away from our instincts, otherwise we'd all still be living in caves yes?  cuddly hug  actually happens all the time in the animal kingdom, and who is to say it's right or wrong?  Male wants to have sex, sees attractive female, gets what he wants.  Are you saying that because this is instinctually what he wants, we should condone it?


I'm going to assume not.  Tying that to this discussion, our desire to turn women into sex objects is a very primal and uncivil thing to do, and it's something that we got away from for hundreds of years.  Of course we'll never be COMPLETELY rid of it, because it's part of our natural instinct, but in many societies that have existed and still exist today, women are not seen as sexual objects.  However, through the use of sexualized media and advertisements, we've gone back to a very primitive way of thinking and viewing things.

Women have always striven to be as sexually desirable as they can manage.

I'm actually very offended by that comment.  To think that EVERY WOMAN who has EVER EXISTED has striven to be as sexually desirable as possible is just completely false.  Many women have had higher ambitions than just trying to improve their physical looks in order to attract mates.

You bring up the Victorian era women as taught to be sexually restrained, but if you don't think they tried their hardest to be as sexually desirable as possible within the confines of the social structure of the day, then you only have to look at much of the art and advertisements of the period.

Like I said, it will never be perfect, but viewing women as people and not just sexual objects is the mark of a civilized society.  Maybe it still happened to a degree in the Victorian Era (maybe it will always happen to a degree), but you're basically just proving my point that when it WAS happening, it was happening through media and advertisement.  So thank you.

Sex sells, and it has always sold.

I won't argue with that.  The reason it has been used is because it sells so well, but it has also adversely affected our culture in the process.

Much of society's ills can be laid at the feet of the media, but I don't think the media caused the objectification of women.

I'll disagree with you there.  There is nobody else who gains a profit from the social sexualization of women than businesses and the media.

By your own same logic, the reason Toddlers in Tiaras is so profitable and popular is because we as human creatures sexually desire small children.  I'm not buying that, and I don't think it's been true for most of human history, even if you'd like to argue the point.  The media has created this interest, for most of the population it was not there before.

But anyway, if we want to continue this discussion it's probably better to make another thread.  I've said my piece, and just because I disagree with this video game, it doesn't mean nobody else should be able to.

[madcow]

So right, getting back to talking about the game... I ended up signing up for the alpha. The tutorial sure enough does tug at the old heartstrings.

It is very much an alpha, but still enjoyable. One of the more amusing moments I saw was a fight broke out in the showers, I missed the fight, but saw the aftermath and what contraband weapons were used. It involved a camera (a polaroid which doesn't have an icon yet) and a RAKE. I'm not sure I want to think about how a rake was snuck into the showers... One of the prisoner's infraction list was "Contraband" repeated so many times it covered the whole screen when I moused over him  . I actually wish I had taken a screen shot.

Also, apparently the prisoners manage to get guns. This is not a rare occurrence, thankfully they don't seem to use it, just show them off.

[zebramatt]

@Wingflier: I long ago realised that sometimes in life you come up against someone whose worldview is based on such a fundamentally different premise that no amount of discourse will prove fruitful - and in those situations it's best to just embrace the pluralism.

Therefore I shall simply say to you, sir: you and I hold remarkably different views; and the world is richer for it.

[keith.lamothe]

Incidentally, I think pluralism actually leads to increased instances and magnitude of coercion later on (sometimes generations later on).

And it often involves a prison system, so I'm not even off topic! ... yea, not really.

[zebramatt]

I think the main problem is that whilst communities lend themselves quite readily to pluralism, individual human beings do not. It takes me a conscious effort of will in this instance, for example, not to attempt to show Wingflier the error of his ways. Because objectively, of course, nothing is objective.

[keith.lamothe]

I think the main problem is that whilst communities lend themselves quit readily to pluralism, individual human beings do not.

Interesting, I think it's actually the other way around that leads to the down-the-road coercion: two individuals with worldviews that, taken to their logical conclusions, should be completely (and probably violently) incompatible often choose to simply be inconsistent with their views and be peaceful towards one another.

But the descendants (physically or philosophically) of a person tend to notice the inconsistencies in their predecessor's practice, and either adjust their view to be consistent with the practice, or adjust their practice to be consistent with the view.  Idiosyncratic inconsistencies fall away, cross-view personal debts and loyalties fade with time, etc.  It's possible that new generations chose to adapt their views to fit their predecessor's tolerance (i.e. towards a view where pluralism is more important), but if they went the other way they're going to be less likely to stay peaceful in their relations with the other folks.

A similar effect is present in larger groups, too, as an individual's personal reasons for inconsistency are diluted by the average.  It's still possible that enough people (or enough influential people) will have their own reasons to keep the peace, but on average I think groups are more consistent with their shared view than the individuals inside it.

Though, of course, some individuals are inconsistent in the direction of being less peaceful than their view would indicate, and that too tends to plane out over time.

Either way, somewhere down the road one group looks at the other and thinks "why did we ever put up with them?  Into the slammer!"   Or compassionate-benevolent-rehabilitation-center, depending.

[zebramatt]

Actually, I think we might even be saying the same thing - but from opposite angles.

I'd argue that the reason post-pluralist society can breed greater conflict is because individuals accept pluralism as a consequence of liberal, libertarian, capitalist and/or democratic society; and if that influence shifts then our 'natural' inclination (arising most often from the influence of the physical world on our ids) is to assume our individual worldviews are objectively sacrosanct, which exacerbates difference in all the circumstances you describe.

[keith.lamothe]

Actually, I think we might even be saying the same thing - but from opposite angles.

Maybe I'm not being contrarian enough

I'd argue that the reason post-pluralist society can breed greater conflict is because individuals accept pluralism as a consequence of liberal, libertarian, capitalist and/or democratic society; and if that influence shifts then our 'natural' inclination (arising most often from the influence of the physical world on our ids) is to assume our individual worldviews are objectively sacrosanct, which exacerbates difference in all the circumstances you describe.

I tend to think the ultimate points of friction existed during the whole process, but that's partly because I don't normally think of situations where two groups collide on "neutral ground" and work out some kind of truce, but rather that one group and its view is established in a society and another group comes in (or evolves from a sub-group within).  Initial conflict, followed by please for tolerance.  Sometimes the dominant group simply applies the monty-python foot and everyone moves on (sometimes the minority group moves somewhere else rather than getting squished). 

Often, though, tolerance is granted, and a form of pluralism begins.  Over time, that pluralism grows from "we're doing this out of generosity" to "we owe these people toleration" and becomes codified as part of a meta-worldview for the whole society, such that speaking against it becomes more offensive than the original dissenting view.  Eventually, the previous-minority view now has enough influence to start calling the shots.  Sometimes the fusion of the two views has come far enough that no big problems result, but in the (more likely, imo) case that "hardliners" still exist on both sides, the previous-minority often uses coercion to deal with those who still hold the old majority view.

Or sometimes it doesn't get that far before enough people see the writing on the wall and break truce, etc.

Either way, it seems to get pretty messy.  And the alternative peaceful conclusion doesn't so much seem like pluralism to me as the subsuming of both older views into a single meta-view where pluralism (and various other unifying pieces, like loyalty to an emperor or whatever) is more important than what either group believed before; a modification which is often contradictory to what those views used to be.

That's why I wonder if there isn't some other way, where we can have true diversity of view in peaceful coexistence, by not trying to unify beyond our actual levels of compatibility.

I'm not sure that would be better, as I don't actually think all (or even most) views are true or good or whatever, but I find it interesting to think about.

Oh, wait, they've come to lock me up for going off topic...

[Wingflier]

@Wingflier: I long ago realised that sometimes in life you come up against someone whose worldview is based on such a fundamentally different premise that no amount of discourse will prove fruitful - and in those situations it's best to just embrace the pluralism.

Therefore I shall simply say to you, sir: you and I hold remarkably different views; and the world is richer for it.

I disagree.

I think there is objective truth to be found in the world.  I do think one person can be right and the other wrong, for if there were no truth, then what would the point be of caring about anything at all?

It's either true that punishment is the best way to fix the situation (stopping crime), or that rehabilitation is the best way.  There is really no middle-ground here.

If it can be proven that rehabilitation is the best way (and I think it can and already has been), then you instead get into competing moral philosophies where one person thinks his morals are more important than the results.

So the question becomes then, if rehabilitation is shown to be more effective at stopping crime than punishment (or prisons), would you have a moral problem with it?  If you have a moral problem with helping people who do something that society perceives as wrong, then the issue is with you, not the solution.

I disagree with Pluralism because in the end people find a way to take advantage of it (as they have in our society), and use the "everyone's opinions are equal" argument to justify their criminal actions.  I don't think every person's opinion or viewpoints should be respected or tolerated, especially when they're wrong.

If you have good reasons or arguments (based on data and statistics) to back up your viewpoint, then it can be taken into account; but your opinion doesn't have value just because you have one.

In other words no, I'm not going to agree to disagree.  I don't take your assertion at face value that your opinion has any relevance to the situation, and I won't respect it until you can back it up.

[zebramatt]

@Wingflier: I long ago realised that sometimes in life you come up against someone whose worldview is based on such a fundamentally different premise that no amount of discourse will prove fruitful - and in those situations it's best to just embrace the pluralism.

Therefore I shall simply say to you, sir: you and I hold remarkably different views; and the world is richer for it.

I disagree.

Exactly.

[Wingflier]

@Wingflier: I long ago realised that sometimes in life you come up against someone whose worldview is based on such a fundamentally different premise that no amount of discourse will prove fruitful - and in those situations it's best to just embrace the pluralism.

Therefore I shall simply say to you, sir: you and I hold remarkably different views; and the world is richer for it.

I disagree.

Exactly.

Once again, you're implying that there is no objective truth.

You seem to think that just because two people disagree, they are both on equal grounds.  This is a logical fallacy.

One person can still be right, even if the other person disagrees.

[keith.lamothe]

More often than not, both people are wrong.

[zebramatt]

I'm implying nothing; I'm coming right out and saying it: there is no objective truth.

I do not believe that disagreement is the source of equality - you've inferred that.

But regardless of both, you're failing to grasp the essence of my point: it doesn't matter if you're right or I'm right, or if neither of us is right, or even if there is no right; because we're coming at the entire universe from such different perspectives as to remove most common ground from our debate.

Your motivations completely baffle me. Your perspective is alien and nonsensical. Your very logic seems illogical and flawed.

I'd wager by this point you think I'm off my trolley and unwilling to justify my obviously wrong position. I might endeavour to assure you that my views are well reasoned and logical to me; but probably I'd just say, "Exactly," again.

Do you see?

[keith.lamothe]

I'm implying nothing; I'm coming right out and saying it: there is no objective truth.

And you know that for a fact?

[zebramatt]

I'm implying nothing; I'm coming right out and saying it: there is no objective truth.

And you know that for a fact?

Nope. It's probably not true!