Arabascan

Today, I wish to talk a little bit about the Stand-Alone-Complex and I already see you, the readers, sit in front of your screen and not understanding a thing. What is a Stand-Alone-Complex (which I'll refer to as SAC in this text) and what does this have to do with these topics in the title? Well, let's start from the beginning. Let's explain what and why and how and everything the SAC is.

The SAC is something that was introduced to me first in the Anime-series: 'Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex'. It refers to a phenomenon of mass-hysteria. The basic idea is that the idea of a certain event or person is spread over the media, something the people believe is real (like a revolutionary book or a political hacker) which is, however, not real. The knowledge of this fictional object of admiration leads to people getting influenced by it, leading to the rise of certain ideals and to copycats. Let's give you a more detailed example from the first SAC-series.

A hacker mysteriously kidnaps a CEO of a company and later lets him free at a public place but not before forcing him at gunpoint to admit a case of fraud. He does so in front of a running, streaming TV camera. Despite that, nobody sees his face because he hacks the camera feed in real time, covering his face with a logo. He becomes known as the Laughing Man. Followed by this incident, multiple cybercrimes – some connected with the logo, some not – become public and the Laughing Man gets the credit for them all. However, in most of these cases, the original hacker was not the person behind it. He is not the Laughing Man, he is just the one the idea of this figure started with. When a hacker later blames a political figure to be involved in corruption and asks for his execution, numerous people attempt to kill him, completely individual from each other, all following the ideals of this mysterious hacker that – in reality – never existed. In this case, the SAC was created unintentionally; nobody had the motivation to blame the Laughing Man for all these crimes (committed by different people, as I must stress out), it was just a combination of media hysteria and bad police investigation.

The idea of a SAC is fictional. But it comes surprisingly close to reality, as I want to show in a few examples.

The first example would be the comic V like Vendetta. In this movie, a revolutionary, hiding behind a Guy-Fawkes-mask, commits a series of crimes over a year, to remind the people of this man and to ultimately bring a fascist government in a dystrophic UK on its knees, while mobilizing the people to stand up against it. This comic was made into a movie, which became incredibly famous worldwide; not at the beginning though but when the Anonymous-movement started to use Guy-Fawkes-masks to hide their faces on demonstrations and in the Internet and also to have a symbol to connect them. This mask is the key of the identity of Anonymous – at least in my eyes. One could argue that the movement would have existed without the mask, mainly because its motivation is political, but I see this mask as a symbol that gave the movement massive media attention and made it as strong as it is now. Anonymous is almost a SAC, the only difference is that people know that V is a fictional character. There is an example however that may be even closer to what I mean. Beware though, this may piss some people off, because now, I bring religion in.

I must point out though that I do not want to talk about all religions. Hinduism, for example, is strictly excluded from my example, because it never tries to show that it is real, nor does it give laws to people. Hinduism is more a collection of myths and legends to tell the people a metaphorical story to deliver a certain message.
What I mean are the Abrahamic Religions and yes, I mean all three: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. These three religions have a few things in common that make them interesting regarding the SAC: they point out special laws for their followers (ranging from the Ten Commandments to less obvious ones, such as in the Suras and so on) and they all insist that they are the truth, that the one God exists, that the prophets lived and that the historical events happened as described. Some even argue that the whole Bible/Qur'an/Thora are ultimate truths, even parts other argue to be metaphorical stories, such as the tale of creation. If you see the religions from an atheistic point of view, you can instantly see the parallels to the Stand-Alone-Complex: A fictional story and history that has a large effect on society, leading to people changing their life completely and even to large-scale wars. And while the basic Abrahamic Religions would be unintentional SACs then – most likely, whoever wrote the bible didn't think of such an effect or intended it – an intentional example would be Mormonism. The book of Mormon was written in modern times, partially opposes the Bible and was most likely created as a tool of mass-control.

And what is my intention in this text? My final conclusion, my ultimate point? It's simple: I personally think that the SAC is not a fictional idea but a real sociological phenomenon, and one that we may observe more often, especially in the age of Internet. And while I do not want to recommend this or anything, I must say that there is a theoretical possibility to artificially create a SAC, whatever the motivation for that may be. And also, I wish that people would learn from this text to think about what they hear and observe before they act accordingly to it.

Edit: The so-called 'Stand Alone Complex' and the idea of a 'meme' - not just the internet phenomenon but the proper, sociological term have a lot in common with each other. If you wish to read more into it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

Yesterday, I found a wonderful game on newgrounds.com, a game called 'Socrates Jones: Pro Philo' ( www.newgrounds.com/portal/view… ). It is a game whose mechanics remind one strongly of the 'Phoenix Wright'-series - just that it is about philosophy or, more accurately, about finding the nature of morality.
Yepp, it is quite a hard game and the fact that I discovered it at 3 in the morning didn't EXACTLY help...
BUT. By its mechanisms, it works pretty well. You are, practically, talking with multiple philosophers, including Hobbes, Mills and Kant to find out about their views on morality and critically review them, to find flaws and reject or accept them as your choice. Thus, by analysing the views on morality of the highest thinkers, you try to find one answer that satisfies you. To prove the philosophers wrong, you use parts of their own statement.
The game was very amusing and very inspiring. After playing it (finished at 5am) and lying in my bed and thinking about it (it's a joy to wake up with birds singing, not to fall asleep with them) I had a few of my own thoughts about morality. I want to present them to you and must ask you to TRY and find flaws in my argumentation, since there is no other way to further evolve my theory. I will present my theory point by point and try to bring a structure in.

Basic problem of morality:
-Morality is about choices of right/good and wrong/bad.
-There is no clear definition of what's right and wrong. Many people have different perceptions of right and wrong; what ULTIMATELY is right or wrong is defined by morality.
-People have different views on what's right and wrong and mostly try to do their best, even if it may seem immoral to others.
-Different people can back their views on what's right/good by logical arguments; others can find flaws in their views by logical arguments. So far, no perfect moralic laws have been found yet that apply to everyone in every situation.
-Most, if not all people who commit acts based on morality do so because they want to cause happiness (instantly or in the future) or want to prevent unhappiness. The majority of the people will agree that happiness is good.
This brings us to the following conclusions:
-Morality is subjective; it is based on the SITUATION as well as on the individual PERCEPTION of the situation.
-Morality is about doing good and happiness is good, thus, making as many people as possible as happy as possible is morally right.

Or is it. Let's take two examples where happiness is created where the way of doing so may not be morally right. I will start to explain the first one: drugs.
-Drugs cause happiness, and quite a huge ammount of it AND do this instantly. The happiness created is so strong that it leads to mental addiction.
-Some drugs have health disadvantages however. This means that those who take them will be unhappy in the future from taking drus (because they'll be ill and die).
-Also, the addiction will lead to criminality, which makes others unhappy.
-Because the long-term unhappiness is stronger then the short-term happiness, drugs aren't good anymore.
This brings the conclusion:
-When thinking about which action is good, one must think about the long-term effects.

Now, the second example. This is an example that most of you will know: The Matrix.
-In the Matrix, people are fairly happy, since they live in an illusional world which is happier than the world they physically live in.
-While being happy in the Matrix, they are physically exploited in real life.
-Most people who find out about that are hurt by the destruction of their worldview and suffer from that. They chose to live in the real world, to fight this system of exploitation.
-There are, however, people who chose the Matrix over the real world and did so knowingly. Because they don't harm anyone by this basic choice and are happier themselves, this is not immoral. Therefore, the simple existance of an illusional world like a Matrix isn't wrong or bad.
-What IS wrong is the fact that the humans who are part of the Matrix didn't have this choice; they were born and instantly forced to live under these circumstances.
-It also is wrong because the creators of the Matrix chose their slavery knowingly. It is not something that couldn't be changed, like the restriction of freedom by living in a physical body (like any human does). It was a conscious act.
This brings us to the conclusion:
-Something is only good if it respects the personal freedom of everyone.

So far, so good, right? However, I must bring up a last point and I am ashamed that I have to do so. What brings the need is the fact that many people judge humans differently based on a certain group they belong to. This group can be related to ideology, nationality, culture, race, sex, sexuality, religion and further on. The people who act like this - I may sometimes refer to them as racists, bigots, assholes or idiots - back their view with pseudo-logical arguments. While most of us (I hope) will agree with me that this is wrong, it MUST be explained why it is wrong.
-There are different groups of people on this world. Some belong to groups naturally, others chose to be part of a certain group.
-These groups consist of people that have certain things in common, may it be religious views, skin-color, worldvies or the fact if something's dangling between your legs or not.
-These things also influence the behavior of these people.
-However, there are lots of things that define a persons personality. Not just points that put them in certain groups but their personal background and history as well as body traits, hormones etc.
-There are so many factors of these that there can't be two people who are completely identical in every regard. Even identical twins WILL disagree on some points or show differences, despite identical bodies and family backgrounds.
-This means that there SHOULD be as many groups as there are people on this world (probably even more).
-Different people also deserve different treatment, because they have different views on, for example, happiness and since happiness is good, you can't generalize what will give everyone the most happiness.
HOWEVER.
-Many moral choices are made without knowing every person. Some are made based on a group they belong to which is valued higher or lower than another group.
-Because the members of this group are complete individuals, you cannot simply consider a group to be 'better' than another one without knowing each member properly.
-Thus, if you don't have knowledge about the subjects you are judging, you must treat them COMPLETELY equal.
This brings us to the conclusion:
-Despite all humans being different, humanity must be treated as equal, unless you know more about the single humans you're judging.

Edit: There is one thing I forgot to mention. Humans make mistakes, this is natural, but this also changes morals a little bit. Let me explain.
-People already did great things to create or restore happiness. They even committed crimes like murder to increase the happiness of many.
-However, often, when a human does something to cause a good result, it backfires; maybe, because the human wasn't aware of all the facts of the situation or because he didn't have the abilities to do it better. Or simply, there was bad luck.
-This means that there always is a risk of every plan failing.
-The fact that humans make mistake is something that every human on this world is aware of; thus, every human on this earth must keep this in mind and plan carefully.
-Because humans make mistakes naturally, the question wether an act was good or bad should be based on the intention, not on the outcome. In the end, someone who plans something bad MAY actually do something good unintentionally and vice versa.
This leads to the conclusions:
-The good intention is more important than the good result of the acts.
-Every person must consider the risks of the action and keep them in mind (or drop the plan if the risk is too high).

And this is my take on morality. That it is based on these points: Happiness (with long-term happiness as a sub-point) and personal freedom, both based on the view that all humans deserve equal treatment and equal amounts of happiness and personal freedom. More accurately: If someone does something with the intention of making people happier while respecting their personal freedom, he does the morally right thing. While errors by lack of planning may be forgivable, it is important to be reminded that people who do something like this need to think everything through and keep the consequences AND risks in mind.

PS: I must explain personal freedom a little further.
-There are many systems where people lack some freedom. In every nation, people lack freedom to do what's against the law.
-However, these freedoms are given up for certain advantages, like security, infrastructure and cable TV.
-Giving these freedoms up is a personal choice and thus, a part of freedom. It becomes problematic when it is enforced to give up freedoms. (Like, it's alright to join the army and have less rights in a lower rank; being force-recruited is not alright and thus, force-recruiting is immoral)
-Your overall personal freedom just goes as far as nobody elses freedom is restricted. You are free to walk around in public space, however, you're not free to invade a persons private place, even in the wilderness where no law exists and no bargain to give away personal freedom has been done (however, under extreme circumstances, the unhappiness prevented from risk of death may have a higher value than the personal freedom harmed).

PPS: I just found a minor flaw that I'm willing to fix. Due to my theory, punishments would be kind of immoral because they restrict someone elses freedom. This is why I have to add this:
-Acts are more moralic if they respect each others freedom.
-However, under certain situations, the advantages of doing something good can be so great that ignoring someone elses freedom is acceptable.
-If someone commits an immoral act against someone else, this act must be punished, ESPECIALLY if said person is a member of a society or group where something like that is restricted. For the punishment, the criminals personal freedom shall be ignored.
-However, the punishment should consider the long-term-effects as well as the effects on other people to be fair.

So, what do you think? Give me your thoughts! How should I know if my theory is true if there is nobody opposing it?

Dear reader, I hope that I can write this article as unbiased as possible. Note that I have no professional insight in this topic; I'm just commenting on it as an individual who is interested in this certain debate. First, I'll list advantages and disadvantages I see in legal drugs and then write a small final comment.

Advantages:
-Most of the illegal drug trade, one of the greatest branches of modern crime, would be shut down. There still would be some that provides illegal drugs or VERY cheap drugs but due to the possibility to get drugs legally, this will become a minority.
-The drugs will be clean. Because they'll be produced by legal companies, the production will be much safer and healthy ingredients will be used. This will save many lives and will keep many junkies relatively functional in daily life.
-Acquisitive crime will be reduced. Unlike the normal cost curve for highly addictive drugs (first doses for free, then higher and higher prices), junkies will have to pay equally for every dose; said dose being clean. Junkies that get treatment may even receive free doses that are slowly reduced over time to get off the addictive drug OR may be provided with a non-addictive solution.
-Huge tax income. Of course the drugs will be taxed.
-Possibility to control the drugs that are on the market, the doses that are sold and the prices.
-More legal jobs in drug production and selling.

Disadvantages:
-Larger numbers of drug use. If it's legal, you can rather test it out, right?
-Less stigmatising of drugs. While this is good for junkies who may reintegrate into society and get off the needle more easily, this may also mean that some people will dare to get high in inappropriate situations.
-Effects on the medical industry: This is an interesting one. If medical companies can now produce something that many want and will pay much for, they will change their production. This also means that medical companies will be less interested in getting people free from drugs. The result: More legal drugs get produced, less medicine (especially medicine that gets people drug-free), some companies may even search for loopholes to get slightly addictive drugs on the market... or try to sell medication to get free from drugs with less efficiency to make people get high, then down, then high, then down...
-Higher rape-rates. This doesn't have to happen but I see the danger... if people get their hands easily on drugs, there may be more cases of people ending up with spiced drinks... or some predators who especially look out for those that are high. And finally...
-Pressure of using drugs to raise productivity: Something we already see in the US. Many people use described or legal drugs to stay awake during work and stay up longer, then other drugs to have some free time (party), then some to get some sleep. With more legalized drugs, this will even rise. It may go so far that those who don't use drugs may get less and worse jobs.

In the end, the two major disadvantages are of economical nature, or simply: The free market will be a bitch like always, especially in completely economy-liberal nations, so obviously, there is quite of control demanded in this area. However, drug crime nowadays becomes so terrible that legalization may be the only possible option left, since prohibition does lots of harm as well.

Well, on to my next non-revolutionary theory...
The core of this theory really shouldn't be anything new. It should be something every person should know already but so many people do it wrong, as far as I know, that I HAVE to write this down.

For this, I should tell something about my own relationship.
It pretty much started with me talking with a girl, starting to roleplay with her. It turned out that we could talk very well with each other. We didn't have the same opinions all the time, not completely the same interests. We were similar enough to have many topics we could talk about and enough differences to keep us discussing and arguing. She was a girl, I was a guy but at first, the most important point was our talks. We were friends and at first, I didn't even have a crush on her or anything. That needed time to develop.

However, even when I had a crush on her and vice versa, even when we became and stayed a couple, this relationship we had at the very beginning remained. Sure, we're together now but I'd see that more like an... upgrade, to use a bad metaphor. We are friends as much as we're a couple. What I mean with this is that we can talk a lot about stuff, can discuss (in quite serious ways) as well as we can cuddle and do all the cheezy stuff.

But there are quite a lot of people out there who just go romantic on somebody who they love or have a crush on. They give nice compliments and all and for some, this might be enough. For others, it isn't and then, these people complain. 'I was so kind to you and you still rejected me?'
That is the case because as awesome as a person might be for personality and stuff that isn't just looks and sex, love often won't be enough. More important is interest, not just for the other ones feelings but also for hobbys, music, political interests, architecture or whatever your partner is into. Don't try to leave the friendzone. Don't just offer a shoulder to cry on and to huggle close to but also a tank for the MMO, an exercise and discussion partner and all that stuff. Don't leave the friendzone but make it grow into something more. Don't just be a love interest, be a friend.

Again, this is of course just a theory... but in my case, I'm happy to say that it works.

First of all, note that this is just a theory. I don't, by any means, want to insult anybody with it. If you disagree with these theories, write a comment, criticise me, I'd be absolutely willing to learn.
Also, of course, all the things I say aren't rules that always fit. There are exceptions, of course.

Alright, let's get started.

The main difference is how men and women show their love about each other.
This theory doesn't nessecarily work in homosexual relationships I'm afraid. I might be wrong with that too though.
For the ordinary, average man, the career is directly tied with women. To find that out, you just have to ask some of your male friends or buddies, I heard guys in my former class openly admitting them. They wanted a good, well-paid job and they wanted to have success in it. The cash and the respect is an important reason for that but also, they wanted to be able to impress women and to be able to feed their families.
For many women, a career is important too. But it's not important as in 'without it, I'm a failure to my partner', but 'without it, I'm dependent'. Their career is important for their independance.
That, of course doesn't mean that women care less for boyfriend, husband and family. They just don't mix their care up with their job, their career and reputation. For them, this kind of care is much more emotional. Which can, in extreme cases, lead to a certain paranoia about what they say and how they act.

Let's take a plain argument as an example.
A woman dressed up for a man, he doesn't notice it because he's tired from work. For her, she is showing her care for him by making herself pretty for him, while he can't understand the ruckus. For him, he shows his care for her by putting efford in the work.
This might sound weird, maybe even a sexist but here comes the point: This isn't something concious. It's sub-concious. So many men are like 'It's impossible to understand women'. It's not. Not if you manage to understand this difference and understand that they think similary about men. And vice versa, which is the reason why many men seem to be so ignorant idiots to women.

Tell me what you think about it, more of my retarded ideas will follow.