I don't approve of Materialistic (Conditional) Love

On "Public Displays of Transaction" 

Not that I care, but I think my personal life was this exactly. 
Back in HS, I developed feelings for a certain girl. For two whole years, we'd exchange homework, food, and even gifts. She laughed at my jokes, I laughed at hers, things went very swimmingly. 
On my third year of knowing her, I decided to ask her out, and she said yes, to my surprise. And so we started dating, I bought her more presents, she gave me some things, we exchanged even more homework, all those usual things a couple does together. 
However, when we hung out, it was always with other people. I actually did fall in love with her for real, personality and all when I asked her out (As in, I thought about marrying her, which is dumb to hear, yes I get it), so I thought I'd ask her if we could go on another date, but just the two of us. 
She said she was busy on several occasions, until one morning I woke up to: 

"Oh sorry, I think it's better if we stop this, I like it better when we're friends, sorry, thanks! <3"  (Yeah she actually put that heart emoji, and I'm just "really?"). 

It was then I realized she was actually my girlfriend just for the things I did for her , and not for me as a person, which hurts since I was her boyfriend for her, and not what she did for me. 

And no, this is not a rant post, I'm pretty much over it. 

The point is, conditional love sucks. To feign love for someone just because they do something for you is pretty much mooching, isn't it? Using them? Today, a lot of people measure love by saying things like "Oh, they must totally be together, that's a nice bag he just bought for her" or "Aww, he bought her (insert latest fashion trend here that costs an unnatural amount of money), they're sure to get married!" 
It's probably due to my old fashioned sense in love, but I don't really like how the meaning of affection has changed in the past few years. From stories I heard from my grandparents and my parents, things were much more direct back then. Sure, it was blunt, but love wasn't a game. Well, that may just be because most my relatives are Asian, and love there is pretty uh...black or white. You'd get rejected straight up, but hey at least your heart wasn't toyed with.  

Cheers y'all. 

Why I did not like the first two Madoka Magika Movies

On "Story or Spectacle? Why Television is Better Than the Movies" 

The first two Madoka Movies (Beginning and Eternal), were quite literally a retelling of the entire 12-episode anime series. No joke, from beginning to end, the first two movies captured the same exact thing for the combined duration of 2-3 hours. 
And I did not like it. 
And it's not because it was the exact same thing. With the new HD visuals and polished animation, I'd actually be amazed if it was the exact same thing. I'd love a new and improved retelling of the story if it meant everything had an upgrade, because the original series animation was personally lackluster. 
The movie "retold" the story, but failed to convey the same "effect". It's not because I watched the entire series beforehand, but just think about it: How would you fit 6+ hours of storytelling into about a third or half of its original length? You'd have to cut some things out. 
And they did. They cut out some parts about the characters' personal life, some interactions that showed personality, some fight scenes, they simplified the dramatic mood in other scenes- It was honestly a disaster to watch. 
The main intent, yes, was to have new viewers catch up in order to watch the real NEW material, which was Part 3- Rebellion. Even so, cutting out some parts from the first 2 initial movies removes the dramatic effect the original story may have had on the reader. Some critical scenes, such as a characters realization of the death-game situation they were in, or the death of another, were so simplified and toned down that a new viewer may not even care about those characters in part 3, when in fact they are critical components of the movie. 

[Me when I was watching Parts 1 and 2]

The way Parts 1 and 2 were developed was criticized quite a bit, as most people now just acknowledge the "real movie" to be solely Part 3. 

And Part 3 was glorious. 

Mandatory Happiness

On "Hollywood's Love Affair with Surveillance" 

Omniscience is a dual edged sword- On one hand, one has the power to prevent and save lives before disaster even strikes. On the other, it can be abused, to create unpredictable, unknown evils out of the ether. 
Surveillance is man's way of trying to play God. It claims to keep order by maintaining a watchful eye on the people. When people act suspicious, the system attacks, in order to prevent a possible crime. 
I'm not trying to explain how surveillance can be corrupt when abused, because that's been done a myriad of times. What I'm trying to explain is the inherent flaw in surveillance: Judgement. 
Think back to what I said. A "possible" crime. A crime that may or may not have been intended. Perhaps the pressure cooker was not a bomb, but rather just an ordinary container containing curry. Who gets to decide whether or not that situation is just a cooking mistake or an act of terrorism? 
We leave it to the hands of humans, who have inherent biases and individualized perspectives on seeing the world. Obviously, this can lead to problems. 
As shown here, in my favorite anime (Psycho Pass), massive surveillance, or omniscience, in the hands of a subjective few is dangerous [GRAPHIC] 

Some background: The premise of this anime is that people are assigned values called a "Crime Coefficient" that goes down when they are in a state of wellness/relaxation and goes up when they are thinking criminal thoughts/are stressed. When that number gets too high, the omniscient system named "Sibyl" automatically sends the police to either arrest or execute people, depending on how high the number is. The most important part to note is that Sibyl does not pay attention to context whatsoever. Just like humans at times. 

In the clip, we see that people are escaping a locked market, making them feel quite panicked. Their crime coefficient goes up to the level where they're deemed as serious criminals meant for the death penalty, even though they haven't harmed anyone. And so, when the market is unlocked, the police see them, and upon viewing their crime coefficients, kill them on the spot. 

This type of surveillance is, by definition, Orwellian. Having your every move, although it is claimed to be for the benefit of society, watched and analyzed, is not fit for a "free world". 

I'm very lucky to live here in the U.S., where people are at least aware of government surveillance and act like nothing is happening. 

Of course, the surveillance in America is extremely tame to what is shown in Psycho Pass. Psycho Pass is just an example of "what could be" 

And I really hope it isn't. People have the right to stress about their problems, to let it out, to be reasonably angry without causing too much of a ruckus. The fact that our surveillance systems cannot 100% understand the context of what is shown on tape can cause many false accusations and ruin many lives. 

Why the title Mandatory Happiness? 

If our surveillance ever becomes like the one in the clip, we'll all have to force ourselves to live happily, whether we like it or not. 

See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil. 

Truly horrifying. 

Loving both "Authentic" and "Synthetic" Music

On "Seduced by the Perfect Pitch- How Autotune Conquered Pop Music" 

Personally, I don't like autotune. I feel like it gets rid of the "hard-earned" talent and effort that musicians put into their pieces. Vocalists and instrumentalists, with the help of certain programs and acoustic engineering, rarely have to worry about hitting the right note. Being able to botch details like that just takes away part of what I love about music: The artistic expertise that it takes to write up and play a piece. You can be an octave away from a chord being played, but because of editing, it's as if nothing ever happened. Nobody does "multiple takes" anymore- they just do one and open up a bunch of software for the next few hours or so. See, I'm a fan of R&B, Jazz, and Classical- The rhythm in those genres are arguably created by the players' own emotions and dexterity and handling the music. Having autotune with that? It takes away the "art". As a colleague of mine stated, people are at arms deciding whether music is something meant to be handcrafted or merely "produced" in the manner of a factory line similar to the days of the Industrial Revolution (van Scherrenburg, 2016). I very much value the "art" in music, so a large part of me is against this new age of "autotune-driven" vocals. 

"Fly me to the Moon", by Frank Sinatra, is one of my favorites

However, I do see the interest in "synthetic" music, as many people today are very interested with fast paced electronic sounds. While I prefer my music to be genuine, I have to admit that "synthetic" means are able to satisfy me in ways that "authentic" music can't. In my  opinion, things like autotune are only good when used as a niche, as a certain style of music, rather than being a corrective device- by that, I mean I would rather have a song in autotune if its MEANT to be in autotune. 

For example, not only do I like classical/Jazz/R&B, but I also like a series of music done by programs called "Vocaloid" and "UTAUloid", which are Japanese vocal synthesizer programs. In these programs, both the beat and the lyrics are artificially created- there is no semblance of anything being "real". Here is the situation in which I actually respect artificially designing music, as it is "synthetic" 100% of the way through, and is not meant to "correct" any blemishes. The style IS electronic music, and the vocals are MEANT to be artificial. 

Yukari Yuzuki- There's Supposed to be a Cheat Code for Happiness

(Also one of my favorites)

I prefer seeing "synthetic" music more as a style/genre rather than being a "tool". 

  

The Realities in a Fantasy World

On An Essay in Unitard Theory

"[Comic books] ... fail to prepare you for what lay outside those covers" 

There is an assumption that people like to watch TV, play video games, or read comic books just to escape reality. To be fair, that is somewhat true. 

Indulging yourself in fantasies and placing yourself in a story out of this world is pretty stress relieving. I myself fall into that demographic- I play MMOs and watch many anime series just to get rid of some of the bottled up stress I have. Fighting a raid boss with other people gives me that sense of community I don't really feel when I'm at school. Being able to relate to other characters in a show or in a chapter helps me feel like I'm not alone in whatever I'm facing. Sure, I'm just a shy person, but sometimes just getting out of the real world can be fun. I can't say anything for more extroverted people, but I think it'd have the same effect on them. 

I disagree, though, that fantasy is useless, that it doesn't prepare you for the real world. 

A coming-of-age story, Oyasumi Punpun, or "Goodnight Punpun", is my favorite manga (Japanese comic) of all time. Contrary to its appearance, it's an extremely dark and depressing story in its entirety that focuses on the daily life of Punpun, symbolized by a bird. I'm not going to summarize the whole story, as it is a vast network of plots, but Punpun is placed into various situations that test his moral capabilities. Through Punpun, the reader is also tested and asked "What would you do" in those very same situations. I found myself often choosing different options than what Punpun chose, which often frustrated me at times. Does he continue an outlaw and murder everyone else or does he turn himself in? Does he love for lust or love for the sake of love? Does he take advantage of others after being abused himself? Those are the questions the manga continually asks Punpun- and the reader- throughout its entirety. 

Now, an argument can be made that the book never taught me any real practical skills like changing a tire or doing gas. Well, that depends on your definition of what "preparing you for the real world" means. 

Personally, I find moral development one of the most valuable skills a human can have in the real world, because honestly, not everyone has them even into their adult years. Indulging in fantasies that question your ability to think and act as a person is a great personalized way to learn how you will make decisions in reality. 

Violence can solve some things. Some things.

On Violent Media is Good for Kids:

I guess this is more of a situational phrase, honestly. Sometimes, as shown by the author, violent media, or any type of "strong" media can truly help in emotional development (inspire confidence, self-growth, socially understanding, etc.). I think what people focus on the most is when violent media actually leads to violent acts rather than a change in mentality (For example, the anime Death Note, a show about a notebook that brings death to anybody whose name is written on it, inspired a few incidents of unprecedented murder. The anime/manga Berserk, with its focus on detailed gore and horror, influenced many manga readers at the time to act and roleplay a bit more... "extreme").
Personally, my actions are very hard to influence, so all the violent anime and video games I play just change my perception on a few things rather than make me go crazy. Honestly, I'm a person who has low self-esteem; I don't think of myself too highly even when given phrase. I think I'm humble, but people say I take it to the extreme. A commonality with most "violent" media is that there always seems to be a leader within every group of characters, someone who is strong yet not necessarily brags about their abilities. They fight with a cool air about them and never dash in without thinking. The reason they fight is almost always for a greater cause, not for some selfish desire of theirs. My personal favorite type of fighting show is the anime called Jojo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders. The action is nonstop, and almost every episode at least three people are getting their face pounded in a hilarious way. But more than the combat being shown, we see the characters develop through battle. Some overcome personal struggles, while others overcome the death of a loved one. For example, Muhammad Avdol, one of the main characters (SPOILER) dies in the latter episodes, which inspires Jean-Pierre Polnareff to finally start thinking less arrogant and selfishly about battle and to approach it in a more calm fashion. Until that point, he was a brash swordsman who always boasted about his swordplay- It is this type of development that I watch these types of shows for. Violent media may show feats of superhuman strength 90% of the time, but I watch for the remaining 10%, the type of emotional strength that can overcome the most horrible of experiences.

I suck at making friends, so gaming really helps.

On Why Videogames Should Be Played with Friends, Not Online with Strangers

I will agree on one point.
Videogames should indeed be played with friends. Be it single-player or multi-player, having company is an extremely fun way to game. Why?
I mean, multi-player games are meant to be played that way- it doesn't really work with one person.
Single player games? In my opinion, it's like watching a funny TV show. One person messes up hilariously (the player) and the others have a good time off of it (friends). Keep on switching turns, and it's pretty much a party, at least from my perspective. I've jumped off the ledges too far in too many Mario games to know the feeling of messing up. But it's fun!
And that's all I'll agree with.

Now, online gaming with strangers. Why do I think it's actually a good idea?

1. It helps people cope with communication troubles- I had/still have social anxiety, and for a while, even ordering food at a restaurant made me lose my breath. Some people have trouble talking to others in person, and you can't necessarily blame them for all of it. Some people were just more confined to the house, others weren't raised in a social enough environment, etc. Online games that have the means of communicating with "strangers" help train people to converse with others in real life, even if it means using the keyboard as "square one". Games are naturally goal-oriented- this creates an optimum environment for communication as both players would have the same goal. Of course, in competitive gaming, there is admittingly strikingly different goals for each team, but the pressure only adds to the need to communicate. Automated pings later become chat messages which later evolve into voicechat on Skype/Discord- Players become very articulate with conveying what they want/don't want.

2. Friends- All of our friends were once strangers, so what's stopping that in gaming? Granted, you can't see them or physically interact with them, which is a turnoff for some people. But for others, they are completely fine with that. I guess it all depends with your definition of "friendship" honestly. Mines, personally, is just "somebody who advises, relates, and respects you". Nowhere in that definition do I want "physically there for me" as a requirement, because alot of people are there, but not really "there" for you. Honestly, I would take a screen name who is true to me over a real life person who's faking their friendship and just using me.

3. Anonymity- In only certain cases do people become drastically different online. I know a few people who say nothing while in school yet have the mouth of a sailor when we're playing League of Legends. When you're playing with your friends and tend to get emotional, those emotions can affect the mood of your friends as well, potentially ruining some relationships. And yes, I know, some of those fights are just little squabbles, but those build up over time into something real. Some people lose friends in the heat of wanting to win a game, and I know from experience (I haven't lost a friend myself from that, but I've seen it happen in a chatroom). Sometimes, people just want to vent and not drag in their friends with them. Playing with strangers online under different screennames just helps that sort of "venting" happen, really.

Game for the sake of it. It's simple.