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.