Category Archives: technology

March 20, 2020 · 5:58 am

Telework, Online Learning, And What A Global Pandemic Can Teach Us About Both

See the source image

In general, people don’t radically change their habits unless there’s a huge incentive and/or a major disruption. By that, I don’t just mean habits relating to drug addiction, exercise regiment, or bedroom kinks. I’m mostly referring to peoples’ overall tendency to keep doing things the way they’ve been doing them, even if they have major flaws.

While it’s rare to get huge incentives to change those tendencies, it’s just as rare to face the kind of disruption that would force people to re-evaluate how they do things. People are, broadly speaking, pretty stubborn. It takes a lot of time and energy to abandon old habits in exchange for new ones. There’s no guarantee they’ll work. Sometimes, they’ll fail miserably.

In terms of disruptions, it’s hard to top a global pandemic. There’s just no way to overstate how big an impact something like that can have on a society. Pandemics have changed the course of history, as well as the course of society. They are the million-ton sledgehammer to whatever stable social system we have in place.

The ongoing crisis surrounding the Coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic is the biggest disruption our society has faced in over a century. It has jarred us all from our comfort zone, to say the least. Between cancellations of major events and concepts like social distancing, we’ve had to reassess how we go about our daily lives.

As frustrating and frightening as it has been, these kinds of disruptions also present rare opportunities. We may never face a situation like this that affords such opportunities, so we would be wise to take advantage of it. In this case, it has to do with how we go about work and school.

We all have this time-tested notion of what it means to have a job and get an education. Having a job means going to an office or work site, doing your work there, and then coming home after a certain amount of time. It varies from person to person, but that’s the general approach.

Going to school is similar. You get on a bus, go to some building across town, stay there for six or seven hours while going to multiple classes, and then you come home. That’s what we think of when we think about getting an education and going to school.

Now, thanks to a global pandemic, this time-tested system has been disrupted. Going to crowded facilities is now a health hazard. Kids can’t go to some big school facility and workers can’t go to some crowded office for a third of their day. Instead, people are having to telework or utilize online classes. For now, this is just a temporary measure while we endure all this massive social upheaval.

At the same time, it also gives us a rare opportunity to see just how necessary it is to go somewhere else to do our work or get our education. It’s a relevant issue that goes beyond our current crisis. These questions are worth asking.

How necessary is it for us to go to some office or school to achieve what we seek?

Is that system really the best we can do?

What are the limitations of telework and online schooling?

What can be done to mitigate those limitations within the current infrastructure?

Can people be more productive with telework and online schooling?

How effective is our current system at supporting these options?

Now, I’m the last person who should defend the current school system. My past experiences with public school give me a somewhat heavy bias in assessing it. However, I doubt I’m alone in saying the current system has room for improvement.

When it comes to telework, I have less experience. In the past, I’ve had instances when I’ve been successful with telework. It depends on the situation and what I’m working on. I suspect that’s common for many jobs. An accountant and a brain surgeon work in very different spheres. One is easier to do at home. The other is a lot messier, to say the least.

It’s worth taking note of just how much we’re able to function over the next few weeks with respect to telework and online schooling. If a sizable chunk of the population demonstrates they can get the job done this way, be it with telework or online schooling, then that’s valuable insight that we should not ignore.

I understand that there are some jobs that cannot be done from home. There are also some things you can’t learn remotely. However, looking back at my experience in school, I’d say about 80 percent of what I learned could’ve been learned online. In terms of work, over half of what I did could’ve been done from home with a laptop and an internet connection.

There’s no reason we should be locked into this mindset that work involves leaving our house or that learning has to take place within a school. There are other ways to do these things and certain people might function better that way.

During a massive upheaval like this, things cannot and should not go back to exactly how things were. We have an opportunity to find a new approach to school and work. I say we take advantage of it as best we can.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Events, Environment, futurism, human nature, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 12, 2020 · 5:59 am

The Joys Of (Briefly) Unplugging And Running

I freely admit that I love technology. I also admit I’m on my phone constantly, checking social media and playing games. I’m the kind of person who gets extremely stressed out when my phone battery is low or think I’ve misplaced it. I think that puts me in line with most people my age.

I cherish technology. I celebrate it and contemplate how future advances will change our society, for better and for worse. Mostly, I favor the better, but I don’t deny that it can negatively effect people in certain ways. Like anything, you take the bad with the good and determine whether the good will suffice.

That said, even I see the importance of disconnecting every now and then. It’s not about fighting an addiction. The whole concept of tech addiction dubious at best and deceptive at worst, depending on who stands to make money off it. It’s a good thing, but like cake or beer, you can have too much of it.

That’s why I make it a point to do something regularly that allows me to separate myself from my phone, my computer, and any other device that has more computing power than a calculator. It’s not pretentious. It’s not because I’m trying to make a stand or something. I just find it genuinely helpful for my physical and mental well-being.

The way I disconnect is simple. I put on my workout clothes. I put my wallet and keys in my pockets. Then, I go out for a nice long run around the various trails around my house. I don’t listen to music, podcasts, or radio. It’s just me, the trail, and my thoughts. It may sound boring and bland. For me, it’s anything but that.

Unlike running on a treadmill, with which I do listen to music and podcasts, running outdoors along trails is more active. You’re not staring at the same wall or hearing some outdated piece of gym equipment crack with every step. You’re actually traversing the real world. You watch trees, streams, and grasslands pass you by. Even when you haven’t gone far, you feel like you’ve gone somewhere.

It’s not just a nice dose of fresh air. Running without any device beyond my keys allows me to just organize my thoughts. Sometimes, I have a stressful day when it’s hard to keep up with everything. A nice run outdoors allows me to get my heart going while my brain just streamlines itself.

It’s a very therapeutic experience. Thoughts become more streamlined. Ideas become clearer. Perspectives feel more balanced. Some of the ideas that have made it into my novels and my sexy short stories have come to me while I’m running. I doubt I would’ve gotten those ideas if I’d been focusing on music, podcasts, or something else.

Again, I love technology. I love my phone and my music collection. It’ll always have a place in my world. However, there are times when I just need to be on my own with my thoughts and the natural world. It’s a simple pleasure that I’ve come to cherish in my adult life. I won’t claim it has the same effect for everyone, but I strongly encourage everyone to try something like it. You may be surprised by how much you enjoy it.

Leave a comment

Filed under health, Jack Fisher's Insights, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 3, 2020 · 6:03 am

A Troubling (But Probable) Thought Experiment Involving Sex Robots And Stalkers

It’s an unavoidable rule of technology. Nobody truly knows how a new machine, gadget, or invention will be used in the future. I doubt the person who invented ski masks knew it would be a common tool of criminals. We can try and anticipate how certain technology will affect society, but there will always be unexpected impacts that come from unplanned uses.

When it comes to sex robots, the impacts are far greater in scope and scale than anyone can possibly predict. I’ve made a concerted effort on multiple occasions. I don’t gloss over the more distressing impacts, either. Chances are this technology will effect people, society, and culture in ways nobody will be able to predict, including aspiring writers who use sex robots in multiple short stories.

It’s often through writing sexy short stories and erotica/romance novels that I often come up with ideas I hadn’t previously considered. Some of those ideas lead to larger thought experiments. Since sex robots are making the news more and more often lately, I thought I’d share one.

It goes as follows:

A man or woman meets someone. They immediately fall for them. It’s love, lust, and passion all rolled into one. They become so obsessed with this person that they can’t imagine not being with them in some way.

Naturally, they pursue this person. They try befriending, flirting, and seducing them. It doesn’t work. They get rejected. At first, it’s just a setback. They try harder to win the love of this special someone. It ultimately fails. Eventually, that someone threatens to call the police and put a restraining order on them.

The person is dejected and sad, but not dissuaded. Since they can’t be with this person they love so dearly, they seek the next best thing. When their would-be love isn’t looking, they scan their body. They then send those specifications to a company that makes sex robots.

They request that the company make them a robot that perfectly resembles the love that rejected them. They also request that the robot be programmed to love them unconditionally and obey them. The company agrees. They make a sex robot that looks, sounds, smells, and acts like the lover they couldn’t have.

Naturally, the person is overjoyed. They lovingly tend to the sex robot, treating it like a real lover. They live out the love they wish they’d had. At some point, it becomes so real that they don’t bother with the person who rejected them. They’re content to leave them alone and live out the fantasy for as long as they please.

Take a moment to think about what I just described. I admit it has some disturbing elements. Stalkers who obsess over someone to an unhealthy degree is a real phenomenon. It ruins lives and can be very damaging to both people.

Throw sex robots into the mix and things get more complicated. What I just described is not technically impossible. It probably won’t be feasible for decades, but there’s nothing against the laws of physics that prevent people from creating perfect sex robot duplicates of random people they see on the streets.

All that anyone would need is the right data. Whether it’s done directly with a device or surmised from a collection of pictures, practically anyone can be made into a sex robot. I’ve noted before how this could effect the porn industry with stars and celebrities licensing their bodies as sex robots. However, I doubt it would stop there.

Whereas celebrities might have the money and legal resources to license their bodies and combat unauthorized use as a sex robot, most ordinary people wouldn’t have that luxury. In the same way most people don’t have access to high-powered attorneys that keep celebrities and rich people out of jail, the average person probably wouldn’t have much recourse.

If some random person found out their high school crush made a sex robot of them, how would they combat it? Could they sue them? Could they sue the manufacturer? What if the sex robot came from an illicit source? How they deal with that?

Moreover, would it even be worth the effort? If a would-be stalker is content to make a sex robot of their obsessive crush, which in turn stops them from stalking altogether, then why would anyone care? Who’s being harmed in this situation?

You could argue the would-be stalker is hurting themselves, but how could we possibly police that? We can’t stop people from hurting themselves. Prohibition proved that. However, with sex robots, we essentially give people a way to cling to an obsession and never move on. Is that healthy? Is there any way to stop it? Is it even worth the effort?

Try to put yourself in this scenario. How would you feel about it? How would you go about confronting it, if at all?

This is just one of the many scenarios that may play out once this technology matures. Again, there will likely be other effects I can’t imagine. Unfortunately, not all of those effects will be inherently sexy.

Leave a comment

Filed under Artificial Intelligence, futurism, psychology, sex in society, sex robots, sexuality, Sexy Future, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 27, 2020 · 6:05 am

A (Hopeful) Perspective On The Coronavirus

See the source image

As a general rule, I always watch the news with a skeptical eye. That’s not just because we live in an era of fake news, misguided outrage, and conspiracy theories about shape-shifting lizard people. I’ve learned from time, experience, and observation that the news can only ever tell part of a story as it’s happening. The full story never comes out until much later. Sometimes, it’s years later.

That’s not easy when following stories like the coronavirus. Unlike other major news stories that make headlines for all the wrong reasons, this is a serious issue. This is something the public needs to know about. The coronavirus is not just a nasty cold. It’s killing people all over the world. That’s an indisputable fact and one that warrants serious concern.

At the same time, there’s a context worth noting. As bad as the coronavirus is, it’s not the second coming of the Black Death or the Spanish Flu. This is not the kind of disease that will turn the planet into a post-apocalyptic wasteland in the mold of a Stephen King novel. It’s still serious, but it’s not a global cataclysm. Even if it ends up killing millions, there are over 7.6 billion people on this planet.

Human beings adapt.

Human beings survive.

It’s one of the few things we’re good at.

There’s another perspective worth considering when following the news of the coronavirus. Unlike the devastating plagues of the past, humanity has developed a decent infrastructure for medicine, technology, and research. Granted, it took us centuries of trial, error, and mass death and there’s still plenty of room for improvement, but that system is there. It’s better than nothing. Just ask Medieval Europe.

That system is already doing its job in combating the virus. Already, researchers at the University of Texas in Austin have mapped out critical portions of the virus. That sort of thing couldn’t have been done this quickly or at all just 30 years ago. This data is critical for the development of treatments and, ultimately, a vaccine.

The fact that this happened so quickly after the outbreak is something the news hasn’t reported on. Even if treatments develop and the virus is contained, as we’ve seen with other recent outbreaks, it probably won’t be a huge story within the ever-changing news cycle.

We know this because in late 2019, the first vaccine for Ebola was approved for use by the FDA and it barely showed up in the headlines. Considering how much panic the Ebola outbreak caused several years ago, this is quite a triumph. It shows just how quickly our current system can respond to these diseases.

Again, there’s still room for improvement and accessibility to medicine is a major issue, but the coronavirus is not some new form of disease. It’s a virus. We know what viruses are. We have the technology to study, treat, and combat them, more so than we have at any point in human history. Considering how much better we’ve gotten since the heyday of the AIDS pandemic, I say that’s reason to be hopeful.

That doesn’t mean we should let our guard down. When the CDC issues a warning about the coronavirus, we should take it seriously. At the same time, we should take comfort in the knowledge that we live in an era where human ingenuity has limited the suffering caused by these devastating plagues.

As with Ebola, we will eventually develop a treatment for the coronavirus. It won’t be perfect, but it will limit the death and suffering it causes. It also won’t make the news because it’s just not scary or dire enough. At this point, finding effective treatments for diseases is so mundane it barely qualifies as news. That’s an objectively good thing.

I hope that helps provide a bit of context and hope to the news surrounding the coronavirus. It’s still worth taking seriously, but we shouldn’t let grim headlines distract us from the great things that humanity achieves when faced with a challenge.

2 Comments

Filed under biotechnology, Current Events, technology, Uplifting Stories

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 24, 2020 · 5:56 am

How Do We Regulate Artificial Intelligence? Seriously, How?

In general, I don’t pay much attention to doomsayers who claim the end is near and we should all cower, tremble, and give them our credit card number. Don’t get me wrong. I still believe there are serious existential threats facing humanity today. Some are worth taking seriously and dedicating resources to addressing. Others are not. Some simply require a more balanced perspective.

There’s a long list of failed apocalyptic predictions. The fact we’re surviving and thriving by most measures shows just how resilient, adaptable, and capable humanity is. There are some threats that I believe humanity will eventually resolve, thanks largely to our accelerating progress in science, technology, and logistics.

Others, however, have me more concerned. While some are more immediate than others, one in particular continues to confound me, as well as some of the smartest people in the world. It involves artificial intelligence, an emerging technology that’s as promising as it is unpredictable. Given the complexity of this technology, it’s difficult to explain in totality, but it can be best summed up by one simple question.

How do you regulate artificial intelligence?

That’s not a rhetorical question. It’s not a thought experiment either. It’s a serious, honest question that people far smarter and far more capable than me are just starting to ask.

Elon Musk is one of them. Very recently, he called for more regulation on artificial intelligence. That, alone, should be both telling and worrying. This man is a billionaire. Usually, billionaires are more inclined advocate removing regulations. Whenever they make an exception, that’s a sign they know it’s serious.

Even though Musk is one of the top advocates for solving big problems with technology, he still has concerns about the problems associated with artificial intelligence. In AI circles, it’s often called the control problem. It’s not a very creative name, but it gets the point across.

How do you control something that is potentially as smart, if not smarter than a human?

How do you manage something that thinks, adapts, and evolves faster than any machine or living thing?

How do you regulate an artificial intelligence that was built by humans, but isn’t at all human?

These are all difficult questions to contemplate, let alone legislate. Even Musk doesn’t provide specifics. Chances are he doesn’t know any more than the rest of the non-billionaire population. That’s a problem because if we’re going to try and regulate this technology, we need to understand it. On top of that, politicians and lawmakers have a long and embarrassing history of failing to understand technology.

However, this isn’t just about writing laws that protect citizens from being exploited by tech companies. Artificial intelligence, especially the kind that exceeds human intelligence, has capabilities that go beyond sending text messages from bathroom stalls. If handled improperly, it wouldn’t just be an existential threat. It could destroy humanity in ways we literally cannot contemplate.

Now, I try to be an optimist in most things involving emerging technology. Humanity has found a way to manage dangerous technology before, namely with nuclear weapons. However, artificial intelligence is a different beast entirely. Regulating it isn’t as easy as simply controlling the materials that make it. The very concept of regulating this technology lacks precedent.

The closest we have to date is Isaac Asimov’s famous three laws of robotics, which were introduced in 1942. Asimov was a brilliant writer and very ahead of his time on some concepts, but this is one issue where we need more than just three simple tenants. We need to think bigger and bolder. If we don’t, then an advanced artificial intelligence will quickly leave us behind.

After that, it won’t matter what kind of regulations we try to pass. It’ll be smart enough to circumvent them. That doesn’t mean humanity is doomed at that point, but we’ll be distressingly vulnerable. I know it’s in our nature to procrastinate on things we don’t see as vital, but if ever there was an issue to make an exception, this is it.

3 Comments

Filed under Artificial Intelligence, biotechnology, futurism, philosophy, technology, Thought Experiment

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 17, 2020 · 9:40 am

A Comment On Bill Maher’s (Dystopian) Rant About Sex Robots

Remember that time someone old, out of touch, and under-informed made an accurate prediction about the impact of emerging technology? That’s not a rhetorical question. Honestly, does anyone remember that ever happening to a meaningful extent?

I ask because it’s been happening for years. People keep seeing an amazing new technology and assume the worst. In some cases, they’re just dead wrong about trends that will or won’t catch on. Some just made dead wrong assumptions about how technology and society would evolve.

At the end of the day, nobody truly knows for sure. It’s fun to speculate, especially when that technology involves sex robots. I know I’ve entertained some colorful possibilities and potential issues, but I never claim I know for certain. I try not to be overly optimistic, but I don’t try to be downright fatalistic, either.

Then, there’s Bill Maher’s latest rant about the future of sex robots. I could try and break down every flaw in his commentary, but I’ll let the clip speak for itself.

Now, I need to disclose that I’m a fan of Bill Maher. I like his show. I think he’s funny. He’s got a great wit and a dry style that I’ve always found entertaining. When it comes to technology, though, he’s more a chronic whiner than a visionary.

He compares social media to cigarettes and complains about how technology has become too complicated. For a man who’s over 60, that’s not surprising. However, for someone smart enough to stay on TV for over three decades, it’s still absurd.

Deconstructing his rant is not that hard. Maher frames the impact of sex robots as an either/or position. To him, people will either completely reject human intimacy for robots or reject robots in favor of human intimacy. However, he never justifies why people would choose only one or the other.

Would people only interact with a sex robot because they can have sex on a level that humans just can’t match? That assumes people are really basic and would all react the same if they somehow had access to a life-like sex robot. However, people are not basic. People are complicated. They have many different wants, needs, and attitudes. Maher himself has noted this when discussing other issues.

Sex robots will change human dynamics significantly. It won’t destroy them. It won’t completely destroy the whole of society. They’re not nuclear weapons. They’ll just change how things are and for older people, especially in Maher’s demographic, that can be scary. It’s easy to assume the worst, but it’s still an assumption and those are notoriously unreliable for predicting the future. The stock market alone is proof of that.

There are many other things I can say about Maher’s rant, but it would all come back to the same point. It’s just flawed and misguided. It assumes there’s not room for both human connection and sex robots in the future. Considering how adaptive and social humans are, I believe we’ll find a way to incorporate them into a new social dynamic that nobody can predict.

It’ll be nothing like Maher can ever imagine.

It’ll be nothing like I can imagine, either.

The future will still come. It’s just a matter of how we’ll adapt, evolve, and grow with it.

1 Comment

Filed under Artificial Intelligence, futurism, sex in society, sex robots, sexuality, Sexy Future, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 8, 2020 · 8:10 am

How I Would (Most Likely) Use A Self-Driving Car

The future can be scary at times, but the prospect of improved technology helps make it more exciting. I would argue it’s the most exciting part of the future. You see some of the fancy gadgets that tech companies are working on and you want to live long enough to use them, especially the sexy ones.

I’ve talked about emerging technology before. While I tend to be hopeful about the impact of certain technologies, I don’t overlook the existential dangers they pose. Some of those dangers are more relevant than others, but others are less fantastic and more pragmatic. One of those advances is self-driving cars.

Unlike some of the other advanced technologies that are decades away, this one already exists, albeit in a limited form. There are cars on the market today that can drive themselves in certain situations. I even had a chance to ride in one a couple years back. It works remarkably well, albeit it could only function on major highways.

There’s plenty of room for improvement, but it’s a promising start. The fact that it exists and is being refined as we speak means this is happening. It’s at an early stage, but like cell phones before it, the technology will continue to be refined. Eventually, it’ll get to the point where it’s better at navigating traffic than any human.

I honestly look forward to that day because I’m not a big fan of driving. I don’t mind it, but I’ve never been particularly fond of long drives, even if it’s for a vacation. My back gets sore, my arms get stiff, and I just get frustrated after the third hour behind the wheel.

It’s because of my aversion to long drives that I don’t take as many trips as I wish. I believe that if I had access to a perfectly functioning self-driving car, that would change. If the technology were refined to a point that I’d just type in an address and let it do the rest, then I would definitely go on trips. .With that in mind, I’d like to share a brief anecdote for how I would use a self-driving car.

It’s Friday night. I finished my last workout of the week, cleaned myself up, and ate my dinner. I’m tired, but I don’t intend to spend the weekend lounging around the house.

About a half-hour before I usually turn in, I pack my bag. I then put on my most comfortable pair of clothes, take a quick bathroom break, and head to the nearest self-driving car. As soon as I’m inside, I punch in the address to the beach that’s furthest south from where I am, whether it’s Florida, South Carolina, or somewhere in between.

I make sure the car has the range and speed. I then close it up, turn the car on, and let it work. From there, I just lay back in the seat and let myself fall asleep.

If all goes well, I wake up just as the car arrives at the beach. Even if the sun hasn’t risen yet, it’s right there in the nearest parking lot to the shore. I get out of the car, find the best spot I can on the beach, and wait to watch the sunrise. I then spend the rest of the day at the beach, lounging about and hitting up beach bars.

Once the sun sets, I return to the self-driving car, punch in my home address, make sure its charged, and ride it home. If I’ve done everything right, I sleep through the ride and wake up in my driveway. It caps off the end of a nice, relaxing day at the beach in which I slept through the commute.

This is just one idea from the perspective of what I’d do. If you have other ideas on how you’d use a self-driving car, please share them in the comments.

Leave a comment

Filed under Artificial Intelligence, futurism, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 3, 2020 · 7:47 am

A Bit Of (Obvious) Advice To Those Trying To Get In Shape In 2020

I know it’s just a few days into 2020. I also know that this is the time most people try to uphold their New Years Resolution to get in shape and get healthier. I completely respect that resolution. In fact, I encourage and applaud it. I’ve made a concerted effort to get into shape. I can personally attest that it’s worth it.

However, I noticed something when I went to the gym yesterday that’s worth noting.

As always, it was crowded a few days after New Years. I expected that. I try to plan around it. While I still applaud people for making the effort, I question their approach.

To illustrate, here’s what happened. I saw someone sitting at a weight bench doing butterfly curls, but stopping for a few minutes after every set to check their phone. I don’t know if they were discussing something urgent. For all I know, this person was a doctor trying to communicate life-saving medical advice.

Even if that were the case, it’s not the kind of thing that’ll help you get into shape. If your workout is easy enough for you to text in between sets, then it’s too easy. You’re not pushing yourself. You’re not burning calories. You’re not building muscle. You’re barely getting your heart rate up.

I also saw other people just sitting on the weight machines, doing a set every several minutes or so, but still focused more on the TV that was hanging from the wall than actually pushing themselves. Again, if you’re able to focus on a TV show in between sets, then your workout is too easy.

I know you shouldn’t push yourself too hard, especially if you’re new to working out. I made that mistake more than once when I started working out. I injured my foot and my back the first week I went to the gym. I also learned quickly that if your workout isn’t intense enough, then you’re not going to get much benefit from it.

Like it or not, you’re going to have to strain yourself. You’re going to have to grunt, groan, and sweat to actually make a difference, both for your health and for your appearance. You can’t do that and stay engaged with your phone or the TV.

I feel like in the age of the internet where a simple Google search will show you everything you need to know about getting a good workout, nobody has excuses. If it helps, just check out this video for simple workout tips and let that be your guide.

If your focus is on losing weight and shedding fat, check out this video. It offers a nice tutorial on how to make a trip to the gym successful.

Again, and this is probably the simplest advice I can give, if your workout isn’t intense enough to keep you from texting someone, then it’s not intense enough.

1 Comment

Filed under health, sex in society, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 2, 2019 · 10:40 am

Why We Should Stop Bleeping, Blurring, And Censoring

free-speech-censored-min

Over the course of history, certain tools, traditions, and words have become obsolete. It’s just part of the ever-changing nature of society. It’s why we don’t use VCRs or cassette tapes anymore. It’s also why we don’t use words like jargogle, corrade, and kench. Those are all real words that used to be common in the English language. Now, they’re relics of history.

Given the chaotic, yet evolving nature of language, why do we still censor certain words in the media? I don’t ask that question as someone who thinks Big Bird should start dropping F-bombs on Sesame Street. I’m genuinely curious as to how we can still justify bleeping certain words when they’re said on TV or over the radio.

I know the history of censorship in mass media in the United States. I know there are laws like the Communications Decency Act and famous Supreme Court cases like FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. Many of these laws have a basis in protecting the eyes and ears of children from hearing or seeing something objectionable.

At a time when the media had only a handful of accessible channels, the might have made sense to some extent. I say might because I certainly don’t agree with bleeping or blurring anything. Hiding something, be it profanity or female nipples, doesn’t make it less real. If anything, it gives it a greater allure, but that’s beside the point.

We live in different times now. That FCC v. Pacifica Foundation decision was rendered in 1978, a time before the internet, smartphones, and comments sections. Today, anyone with a cell phone and an internet connection can look up any amount of obscene, indecent, profane content, plenty of which is accessible to children for free and without a credit card number.

Kids know what these words are. Chances are, they know what female nipples look like too. However, TV shows and radio stations still blur and bleep these things as though they’re as damaging as a pack of cigarettes. I know the law is often slow to catch up to trends in technology, but at this point, bleeping or blurring anything is more a joke than a legal mandate.

That’s easy for me to say as a legal adult with no kids, but I haven’t forgotten what it was like to be a kid. I remember hearing these dirty words and seeing these dirty images. I knew what they meant. My parents didn’t hide that from me. They didn’t like me saying those words or talking about those topics all the time, but they told me the truth and I understood it.

Kids may be impressionable, but they’re not stupid. Most kids are smart enough to understand that words carry certain meaning and the human body is composed of many parts, some more visually appealing than others. Censoring it doesn’t change that. If anything, it sends the message that everyone thinks they’re too stupid or weak to handle these concepts.

Aside from insulting kids as a whole, it also operates under the assumption that just hearing certain words or seeing certain images somehow damage them, as though human beings are ever that simplistic. While there is some research on this topic, the conclusions are fairly limited. The only common thread seems to be that, when it comes to dirty words, context matters.

There are times when we, as human beings, need to verbalize our emotions. When we’re angry, in pain, or upset, we’re going to want to communicate that. Profanity is just a byproduct of that. I know that when I stub my toe, I don’t stop to censor myself. I drop as much F-bombs as I have to and the world remains intact, even when there are children nearby.

That doesn’t mean I want kids to cuss like me all the time. Again, there is a context. There’s a time and a place for that sort of language. That’s an important lesson to teach someone at any age. That way, they’ll know not to sound like an asshole at a job interview or while on a date. Bleeping words doesn’t teach that lesson. It just gives these words more power than they deserve.

Standards are always changing. There was a time when Clark Gable saying “damn” in “Gone With The Wind” was considered shocking. When I was a kid, I certainly got plenty of scorn when I said words like that, even while not in public. However, hearing them on TV and movies didn’t change my understanding of these words. It just sounded stupid.

This used to be considered mature.

These days, it’s not uncommon to hear someone say “damn” in a TV show or song. It doesn’t get bleeped or censored. More and more, words like “shit” aren’t being bleeped either. Rick Sanchez says it at least once an episode on “Rick and Morty.” There was even an episode of “South Park” that made saying “shit” on a TV show a big deal.

In terms of knowing when something has become obsolete to the point of absurdity, that’s as clear a sign as any. The same goes for blurring certain body parts. The widespread availability and accessibility of internet porn has removed all sense of mystery from the imagery of breasts, butts, and genitalia. Kids today no longer need to find someone’s porn stash to see these parts in all their glory. They just need an internet connection.

Now, that’s not to say I’m okay with every prime-time network show depicting the same level of profanity, sex, and violence as an episode of “Game of Thrones.” Like anything, there can be too much of it and if overdone, even the most obscene or indecent concepts lose all meaning and are devoid of impact.

There are also some people who are genuinely uncomfortable using certain words and seeing certain images. That’s perfectly fine. That’s their choice. Since there are plenty of options in terms of channels, websites, and radio stations, they don’t have to listen to or see this kind of content. Even if they do, the world doesn’t end because they’re temporarily distressed.

When the late, great George Carlin famously listed the infamous seven dirty words that became the basis of a Supreme Court case, there was a context and a situation at the time that made this kind of censorship seem reasonable. That context and those times are long gone. Carlin himself understood that. When it came to deconstructing the absurdities of language, he said it best when he made this observation.

These words have no power. We give them this power by refusing to be free and easy with them. We give them great power over us. They really, in themselves, have no power. It’s the thrust of the sentence that makes them either good or bad.

 

1 Comment

Filed under censorship, Current Events, media issues, political correctness, sex in media, sex in society, technology, television

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 21, 2019 · 6:01 am

Why The “Terminator” Franchise Has Faltered (And How To Revive It)

https3a2f2fblogs-images.forbes.com2fmarkhughes2ffiles2f20162f012fterminator-2-1200x873

Some franchises just aren’t built to last. It’s a sad fact of life. Sometimes, the things we love just cannot grow and blossom. Not every franchise can be like the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In fact, every effort to mirror the success of the MCU has either failed or come up short. For some, it just doesn’t have resources to grow to that extent. In some cases, trying to force a franchise into something it’s not will only hurt it even more.

The latest franchise to learn this the hard way is the “Terminator.” Believe me when I say I take no joy in saying that. I’ve always had a special place in my heart for all things “Terminator.” The original 1984 film was one of the first R-rated movies that my parents let me watch. I remember being scared, but thrilled at the same time. As a kid, that was a major step up from traditional Disney movies.

Then, I saw “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” and the highest of bars was set. Like the first movie, it thrilled and amazed me to no end. At the same time, it struck many emotional chords, especially at the end. I still get choked up to this day when I hear the T-800 tell John, “I know now why you cry, but it is something I can never do.” There’s a good reason why many rank this among the greatest movies of all time.

A big part of what made that movie great was how it completed the story. What began with Sarah Connor’s journey in the first film ended beautifully in the second. It was as complete a story as it could’ve been. To make a sequel after that would’ve been like trying to improve on the Mona Lisa. While the prospect of sequels still interested me, I never got the sense that they could improve on what the first two movies did.

That didn’t stop Hollywood from trying multiple times. While some of those movies had their moments, they never came close to improving on the first two. If anything, each sequel did more and more damage to the franchise. It showed in both the critical reception and the box office. Now, with “Terminator: Dark Fate” an outright flop, the state of this franchise is dire.

Some are already saying it’s dead. I don’t agree with that. It’s in critical condition. That’s for certain. However, I don’t think it’s doomed to the archives of cinematic history. I believe it’s worth taking a step back to understand why the franchise has faltered so badly. I also believe that there is a way to revive it for a new generation.

The reasons the franchise declined are many. Ask a dozen people who love the franchise as much as I do and chances are you’ll get several dozen answers from each of them. They usually boil down to reasons like this.

The ending of “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” was too perfect and final to improve upon.

The sequels muddied and messed up the timeline more than it already was.

The sequels focused too much on action and not enough on the horror of the first movie or the drama of the second.

The sequels didn’t utilize enough of the original cast, relying heavily on the star power of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The sequels undermined or undercut the impact of the first two movies.

The sequels were too focused on setting up a trilogy rather than making one solid movie.

The threats in the sequels were too bland and predictable, relying too much on newer Terminators fighting older Terminators.

Personally, I think every one of these reasons has merit, but some have more than others. When I re-watch “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” and compare it to the sequels, I can clearly see the difference from a cinematic and storytelling standpoint. That movie was made to complete the story that James Cameron started telling with the first. Every other sequel was made to set up more sequels.

From there, every other issue compounded. The focus of the movies was less about having a genuine impact and more about teasing a future movie. That only works if the first movie is successful and that didn’t happen with any of the sequels after “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.” They attempted to set up a larger story, but nobody cared about that story anymore.

Then, “Terminator: Dark Fate” committed the ultimate sin, in my opinion, when it effectively rendered the first story pointless for the sake of a new one. For me, that ensured that this would be the first Terminator sequel I didn’t see in the theaters. I doubt I’ll even see it when it comes out on cable. What this movie did to John Connors and the over-arching narrative of the franchise just cannot be overlooked.

It’s so bad that I won’t even bother with a spoiler warning. “Terminator: Dark Fate” kills John within the first two minutes of the movie. In one cold, callous sequence, this character who fought so hard with his mother to save the future is rendered pointless. The only difference he made is that the name of the future robot overlords changed. Instead of Skynet, they got Legion. That’s it.

Not Pictured: Anything remotely appealing.

It would be akin to having Thanos come back to life, murder the Avengers, and wipe out half the life in the universe all over again in the first movie after “Avengers: Endgame.” Everything and everyone they fought to save is rendered pointless. Then, that same movie tries to tell a story about a new savior who nobody has any attachment to and will always be defined by being John’s replacement.

There’s nothing about that story that has any appeal, either to a fan of the Terminator franchise or any franchise, for that matter. On top of that, “Terminator: Dark Fate” went heavy on mixing gender politics with the movie. That’s not just an indirect interpretation. The director, Tim Miller, flat out admitted it in interviews before the movie came out.

I don’t want to get too caught up in that aspect of the movie, but I do think it was a contributing factor to the movie’s shortcomings. We’ve seen it happen with other movies before. When a movie is too focused on enduring its female characters pass the Bechdel Test, it rarely puts enough effort into making them likable or endearing. It also obscures the overall plot by making it predictable.

There are many other flaws to highlight in “Terminator: Dark Fate,” as well as plenty more in the movies that came before it. Rather than belabor those, I want to focus on how this franchise rebuilds itself from here. The failures of the sequels have damaged it significantly. There’s no amount of time travel or retroactive changes that can save the story that “Terminator: Dark Fate” tried to set up.

That said, this franchise does have a few things going for it. It’s a known brand that people recognize. When most people hear the word “Terminator,” they usually understand it as a reference to the movies. Even if it’s not as strong a brand as it used to be, it still carries weight and sometimes, that’s all it needs.

The first step to rebuilding it involves ending the futile efforts to build, expand, or somehow improve on the story of Sarah and John Connor. Their story ended perfectly in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.” Most Terminator fans agree with that and anything that would somehow undermine their legacy is only going to cause more damage.

The next step is to start a new timeline, but one that doesn’t focus on saving the future leader of the resistance or ensuring that Judgement Day occurs. That story has been done to death. For Terminator to succeed, it needs to show that it can do more. In fact, I believe “Terminator: Dark Fate” actually has one sub-plot that might be the key to the franchise’s renewal and survival.

In that movie, the Terminator that killed John, played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, secretly built a human life for itself after its mission was completed. It walked around as a human, met a woman with a son from a previous marriage, and formed a family. If the movie had any plot worthy of intrigue, it was this. Sadly, it was poorly developed and mostly rendered pointless by the end.

It’s a concept that might resonate more today than it could have in 1984. When the first Terminator movie came out, machines and robots weren’t that smart. They were defined by how inhuman, cold, and calculating they were. In recent years, that has changed. Movies like “Ex Machina” and “Wall-E” have built compelling stories about robots that have human traits, including emotions.

It’s something that the Terminator franchise has flirted with before. Part of what made the ending of “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” so dramatic and impactful was the emotional attachment that John developed for the T-800. Even the T-800 showed signs that he’d formed a bond. It made that final sacrifice feel so powerful.

Even “Terminator: Genysis” explored the idea. It had another T-800 form a fatherly bond with a young Sarah Connor, so much so that she called him Pops. While the movie didn’t flesh out the concept as much as it could’ve, there were moments that highlighted the extent of this bond. I strongly believed that if this movie had emphasized this concept over making John Connor evil, it would’ve succeeded.

Rather than hint or imply it, I believe a future Terminator movie should go all in on this idea of a killing machine developing emotional attachments to humans. It’s something that is more relevant today than it was in 1984 or 1991. We already interact more intimately with technology and we’ve even given our technology a personality. I say that’s a story that the Terminator can build upon.

Imagine the following scenario.

It’s the distant future. Machines have taken over. Humanity has been all but enslaved. There are only pockets of resistance. To combat this, the central machine intelligence, Skynet, creates Terminators with the sole purpose of killing the remaining humans.

However, humans prove crafty. They outwit and outsmart the early models. In order to become better killers, new Terminators are created that can mimic, study, and process emotions. Ideally, it could infiltrate human resistance camps, earn their trust, and terminate them appropriately. They would be the ultimate killers.

Unfortunately, there’s not enough data. Humans are too scattered, weak, and desperate. Skynet doesn’t have enough data to give these new Terminators the capabilities it needs. It calculates that it would take too long and require too many resources to compile the data in the present. As a result, it decides to send a model back in time before machines took over.

The model’s mission is simple. It must integrate into human society, compile data, preserve it, and transmit it back to Skynet by preserving it within disks. If it’s identity as a machine is uncovered by a human, its primary protocol is to terminate the human.

The first model is sent back. It arrives in a bustling city that would one day be reduced to ruin. It finds clothes, has an identity, and begins integration. However, just as it’s starting to establish itself, a human finds out it’s a machine. Its protocols are activated, but then something unexpected happens. It doesn’t terminate the human.

Instead of fear, the human develops intrigue. It connects with the Terminator. They start to form a bond. Eventually, the Terminator’s systems for mimicking emotions turn into real emotions. It develops a love for humanity and decides to defy Skynet. That decision ripples into the future and Skynet tries to send other Terminators back to destroy it.

As a Terminator fan, I would love to see a movie like this. It could work with a male or female Terminator. It could also work with a male or female protagonist. Like the T-800 in “Terminator: Dark Fate,” it could even become part of a family, giving it something to fight for and protect. Instead of fighting to protect a savior, the Terminator fights to change the fate of both itself and humanity.

This is just my idea, though. I’d love to hear with other Terminator fans think. I’d also love to hear how they would revitalize this franchise. I believe there is room for this franchise in the current cultural landscape. As machines and advanced artificial intelligence continue to progress, I suspect it’ll become even more relevant.

Like Sarah Connor once said, there is no fate, but what we make for ourselves. That applies to our future as a species. It also applies to this franchise.

Leave a comment

Filed under Artificial Intelligence, gender issues, media issues, movies, outrage culture, technology

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,