Prof. Dr. Vladimir L. von Misconception

So - I make choices. And there are a variety of strategies and a variety of reasons. Problems that need solving perhaps. Problems that pop up in my head make me eager to respond, but usually giving it some time is enough to resolve some, if not all of it. Now, once again, I'm feeling like something's off. And it seems like this time around it's the better idea to not wait it out.

So, I'm feeling conflicted. But something is different. Rather than there just being some confusion, I feel like I'm actively not listened to. Like ... that I'm heard, as opposed to nobody even knowing that I exist, but ignored. I could so call it an act of aggression. Like, opposition has always been around but I could write it up to this or that - this time feels different.
And yea, that's a trend that has become more and more pronounced "this season" of the shitshow.

So is there this feeling of failure - on my part - but rather than feeling like I have to explain this or that, or that people yet have to understand this and that - I feel like ... yea, as stated, that certain things have been said, but are simply getting ignored. I must assume then, that somewhere, somehow, things have been happening - and ... some kind of decision has been made.


So, that's the premise for me. The mindset - or my general condition - I go into this with.

On the other hand I have a more independent topic. It came up in school recently; And that I have to preface with an understanding I've come to today. Whenever we're having some discussion or whatever in class - and I try to say something that's related to my "mission", political or not, opinion or not, the words practically get stuck in my throat. And so I have to stress myself to remove myself from such conversations and let others do the talking. With some exceptions. Like when a discussion carries over into ... whats the word ... recess? Pause? Break?
It was in some class where we watched a Video of some Doctor or Professor of something giving a Lecture/holding a Presentation on the negative consequences of Social Media or something. Well, we didn't get through the entire thing, but for what was said, the general gist is that screen-time has a pretty tight correlation with depression, cognitive decline and various physical health problems.
Those would include Sexually Transmissible Diseases - principally explained by the usage of apps such as Tinder. It all looked pretty dire - enough to throw me into a loop of some sorts; Feeling somehow like I must address this. Or share the information. Like it's really important that everyone knows this.

Someone else then threw a rebuttal into the room that I had on my mind also - but the Teacher and the most Vocal pupil in our class countered that pretty adamantly and so I had to support him. The rebuttal, or not so much a rebuttal but a remark, being that Videogames can have positive effects. The argument from the teacher was that Videogames have also been considered - while the pupil acknowledged that Videogames can have a positive effect on one's IQ but that it doesn't matter. The preferred take overall being that screen-time is bad.
The teacher was also a bit baffled; So she asked for any one study that would show that - in a manner that seemed as though she didn't believe there is any. Aaaaand ... since I've taken some liberties at indulging my appreciation for certain games, yea, I felt like I should address this situation.


Now, if you want to trust my 'divine insight' - the thing I understand to be true beyond the shadow of a doubt, regardless of how much I actually know or understand - well, yea and "duh" - it's right there, as in: It is as it is: Both sides are correct.

But that's a little lazy.

But, first and foremost there's the obvious thing: Screen time is time spent in isolation. Social Contacts that unfold via screen-time occur with a far more limited range of immediate feedback. Like, you type out some text, then for a few second all you got are three dots hopping around, then stop, then nothing, then they hop around again ... and then maybe all you get is a single emoji. And there's a lot we can read into that. I know I've been the side that would cause the hopping followed by nothing followed by a handful of stuff a few times; But that mostly because I didn't know how to formulate what was on my mind. But ... who knows what's really going on there?
I mean - I also don't check my What's App regularly. So it might take some time for me to respond; So, I'm like ghosting people just by virtue of being on What's App, in a sense.

That "screen time = bad" person did at some point however also mention something else. The precursor to screen time: Book Time. That perhaps just as a side-note; So on the matter of short-sightedness.
But yet. So, the next issue for me is: What do you do with your screen time?

Because, it's one thing if I solve complex problems while sitting at my computer, versus mindlessly doomscrolling on reddit for an hour or so. The one thing gets me depressed and the other is just how I unwind from time to time.
And sometimes the roles of that are reversed I'd say, but the effect is still different.

Essentially however, what you do while you're not "real lifing" doesn't change that you're not real lifing. And I've been trying to stress as much for some time now. I didn't outright put it like that because I didn't see it in this context. I'd mostly think of Incels for instance. I would write "touch grass" ever so often. It's the reason why I think that church is important. Not church in the classical sense, but a modernized sense. Akin to bringing the town-square back. Except there's many many town-squares that hierarchically come together in higher and higher orders until we get to some top-level town-square; And we have to make sure that it's all in sync. That there is no disconnect. Which is one of the plagues of the modern day; And kind of what this right here is all about.

So, if you felt like I woefully ignore the real dangers while recklessly promoting time-consuming videogames; Well ... you've gone gotten.

The real reason I brought up this topic however is, that it makes a neat example. So, that pupil - while they and I were arguing back and forth eventually dropped the line that "it's a systemic problem" - and yea, that's what I'm saying so I said that I don't disagree and left for my smoke-break.
Because that's the point. The more we isolate into our own little social and online bubbles, the less real life we get. And that then ties over into a recent tale from school I shared; The part where online influences eventually overshadow real life influences.

What I think is an outlier to this are games like Ark or Rust - Minecraft perhaps, when played socially - at least so when playing with friends and having some form of team-speak enabled. Though there are still no facial reactions, there is still a broad range of interaction. But ... anyhoo ...


So, at first I wanted to write about this "screen time = bad" as a grave misconception when taken in isolation. A danger in and of itself when triggering a crusade that tries to fix something too radically. And yea, gaming has been a favorite target of people trying to find a scape-goat; And there's pretty little we can say in defense of gaming; Because .... "its just videogames". If my word meant anything I'd say "you can go fuck yourself" at everyone who needs to be said that - because it's our society that needs fixing. Not the fact that people are turned off by it, ensnared by whatever honeypot the capitalistic hellscape we live in proliferates.

I mean, this whole nonsense with clicks and views and ratios ... it's the absolute worse ... . Well, there probably is worse - but for first world problems; This is it. It's a first world problem; And it is a REAL problem; Because it is the primary thing that bars us from having a reasonable internet.


But before I digress too far. So, now however, the example is about the duality of certain things. Like apparent paradoxons. If the juxtaposition between screen-time-bad and video-games-good seems paradoxical, the problem is that your understanding is built on incomplete ideas. Incomplete as per the detail or resolution of items that compose it.

Well. Originally I was coming from a position where I was curious about where I might have gone wrong. And my impression was - or is - that it's not so much that I'm wrong; As highlighted by also looking at the things I'm right about. We might call this a neat little trick.
So, I say video-games-good. Now someone else comes and says screen-time-bad. Subsequently it looks as if video-games-bad; But that's not what they're saying. They're right saying that screen-time-bad; And so you'd assume that I'm wrong. But when thinking of what I'm right about, then yes, video-games-good also! (Well, can be).

So I was about to argue, that what you think I'm wrong about, isn't actually stuff I explicitly stated. It's stuff that others bring up - implying that based on what I stated, this and that is what I say; And that then turns out to be wrong. Like ... cool. But I didn't say any of those things. And if you were to wonder about what I'm right on - you might see things a little differently. And it's ... yea, saying what I didn't say are things I'm saying ... well. I know that I encourage you to think for yourself - but ... sometimes I don't have a lot of hope for that working out so well. I mean, if you imply that what I say also says this other thing - you're suggesting that there is no other way.

So ... screen-time-good?


Well - obviously it can be! Like, you won't die the moment you look at a screen. Sure, nobody is saying that; But ... sometimes it feels like the only thing we can talk about are such extremes. I mean, I don't mind real-lifing. I sometimes literally feel how social media sucks the life out of me; Which is however a system problem. And still ... sometimes I want to sit down and do some stuff by myself.


But that's not all there is. I mean, the human being is flawed. That's called the Mangle and I hope that that is common sense. When it comes to politics in the modern day and age - it all seems to be about Immigrants. Except when it's about "the LGBTQIA++^2XYZ" - or the Pedos unless it's about actual Pedos.
Or whatever.
So - I recently stated that the US republicans are just one step away from Fascism. The counterpart of that discussion then moved on to say something about immigrants, border walls and how people call other people fascist for being concerned about that. Which could be taken as a red flag, but that also has absolutely nothing to do with what I wanted to say.

In that whole discussion of Fascism today, Migration is already an utterly outdated topic. Things have moved on from there quite a bit. I mean - US republicans might deny affiliation with Project 2025 - but still ... what the US Supreme Court has done (Roe v. Wade, Presidential Immunity, the "Expert Review" thing and what was it? Something about the President having the power to fire everyone from any federal position they disagree with; As to fill it with people they deem fit) - only misses one thing: A fascist president to make of it what they will.

So, we don't even have to talk about Project 2025. Though, if we look at the two side by side ... it ... you know ... . I mean, the Roe v. Wade thing has nothing to do with Fascism, but everything to do with the kind of beliefs the Project 2025 authors insist of institutionalizing.


Anyway. The angle of attack also matters here. If I were for instance 'pressed' on the matter of Immigration or Refugees - I take it as being about the contemporary situation; Presented from a position that assumes widespread support for the matter as an important thing. Thereby the idea generally happens to be; That would be "the Democratic agenda" (even if the majority isn't down with it ... herp derp); That we need to halt unwanted migration and refuse refugees. And if I don't say that; Then everyone who supports that position ends up disagreeing with me. And all the "rational" people that look at the numbers and try to make the difficult decisions - that also happen to be people of influence - would use that to call me crazy or whatever.
And it still goes on. Were I to argue against that, I'd be some crazy Lib who has lost all touch with reality; Stuff like that; To the tune of me welcome our new immigrant, rapist overlords with open arms - maybe with a free pass to all of our daughters.
Giving green light to Hamas to raid Israel - and ... well, hard to say how the Russian war-criminal fits into this.

To untangle this mess, one item is important to me. And it sure isn't all that obvious. I sure had to struggle to come to this item - though it's actually at least somewhat obvious. This concern is a very nationalistic concern and I am no nationalist.

[Mic Drop] moment. But as it is with those ... there are always so and so many who don't get it - it seems. I mean, as it turns out there are multiple subs on Reddit that are just about that. Like ... what's it? PeterExplainsTheJoke?

Moreover ... this is a somewhat Biblical Jesus moment, except that I'm not Jesus. Was it the Bible? Well, somewhere some verses go like: And if they come and ask you this - tell them that. I'm sure that's in the Bible. So, in this instance: If they ask you about the migrants, tell them: The Planet is for everybody.

And I hope we can now see a little bit more clearly where I'm coming from and what I'm getting at. Now, if at the long end we find ourselves somehow in some kind of World War Z type situation - yea ... sure. I guess ... closed borders, building walls and such makes sense. Like ... we'd have to wall off all the areas too severely affected by climate change ... and depending on what dimwits we're governed by, if any, that line might shift - but I suppose there's some kind of tolerance there.
Like, who knows ... the tallest mountains might after all be prime real estate!

So - that's the "just give up" way of thinking. Like ... if we don't fix the global conditions, the problem we're worried about will only get worse. And I get that some percentage of those worried about the immigrants are basing that entirely on some panic reaction to the projected disaster. And with that attitude ... you're going to vote Fascist, like ... as sure as Climate Change is man-made, a.k.a. the dumbest thing ever a.k.a. why even argue?

I mean, it wouldn't take a Prophet if that were the way; Though I'm sure that some people would like to argue that it takes a real and strong man to unite mankind to ... well ... build a wall and do a genocide because that's what real and strong men do apparently.

But no. The reason why people think they need a strong man is because they're 'sick' of hearing the Lefties and the Libs bring up their humanitarian and compassionate arguments. So, it's like ... if the fasco-shit is getting real, a safe bet that we're the first ones in the line of fire - and by the time folks realize that they did a terrible mistake, well, they're next in line to get a bit of a "welcome to fascism".
And yea - how does it go? "I'm almost tempted to let him take it" ... though that particular quote works for a variety of things ... but anyway ... I don't like it!


So, to be frank: If you believe in a God or Karma or anything Supernatural like that - this seems to be some kind of "last chance" ... we have ... to revoke fascism. I mean, this is a supernaturality argument in as far as we assume that the Cosmos has some kind of intention or plan - and that there's a morally superior position that is actually going to solve our problems; As opposed to doing the morally wrong because some asshole managed to convince you that it's "the rational thing to do".

Removing the supernatural component, there's also the philosophical/ethical side. That deals with our humanity, cultivating the good in it; Which deals a lot with hope - and implicitly demands us to reach out, to 'act' good - to display good will - especially unto the weak; As opposed to slamming the door shut in their faces.

We then can spice that up with Christianity, as per the teachings of Christ, to practice forgiveness, to turn the other cheek - as that certainly is a thing these days. But here I'm also not sure how the Russian war-criminal fits in. I mean, let's hope that the earth opens up (parable: Usually taken as a metaphor for "the masses") and swallows them.

As for a purely rational argument, well - it depends. It firstly depends on who gets to be in charge; Especially due to what hidden agenda they might pursue. The common term used these days is corruption. Corruption at the highest levels comes with a few implications that the general public might glance past for as long as they don't need to be bothered by it. Like ... who cares about the few poor sods that just so happened to be on the "wrong" side of history? By and large people might still be able to believe that they did the right thing; Maybe they have gay or trans friend that they support for browny points; Unless they live in the USA I guess - regarding which I suppose the rest just has to accept that the Handmaid's Tale is going on; But that shouldn't stop us from benefiting off of their economic output. Right?
I mean, why worry about migration when at the same time the problem seems to be too few people?
Well, it's cultural. I'd say.
Anyway - as for being purely rational, there are a variety of concerns I want to bring up; Concerns that people might want to dismiss as fake news or whatever. Like ... the strong anti-science push that's coming from various corners that are very keen on pushing their strong-men into power. I can believe that that's just nonsense ... but you can't guarantee that now, can you? I'm sure some might say that they don't stand for that ... but once it's normalized that macho-talk is the de-facto status quo, well ... I'm sure there will be "concessions", like 'compromise' ... that might make some people a bit more uncomfortable in hindsight.
But well - that's fearmongering - let's say. Though ... if you want to be rational; You have to consider human nature - asking yourself the question for what parts of it you want to proliferate.
So, that's a rational argument though more so - still - on the ethical/moralistic side of things. That question then stands against the question of whether you'd like crazy fundamentalist US evangelical type people to interpret the will of God in respects to their opinion that everything is good if God wants it so.

I mean - I'd also agree with that, but ... more so on the basis that I refuse to believe that God wants us to be bad. So, if something bad were necessary; It isn't up to us to play God or pretend as if God wanted us to do it.
Those crazy Evangelicals on the other hand, "some at least", are arguing that Slavery is Good actually. Which, in this context, well ... I'll leave it at that.

To also remove the ethical component, to have some quasi mathematical perfect answer/argument, well ... the thing is that there are a lot of variables that need to be considered; And quite a few of them are even subject to our control. With that control we have some say in what we want to do, where we want to be - what we try to accomplish. Based on that we can at least in theory calculate the odds for this or that to succeed - and then ... well. We can either take the way with the highest odds - or we try to be risky. Maybe because it's cooler that way.
Like ... balls to the wall!

But if we try to make that decision behind closed doors ... well ... that'd be an awfully bad start; Considering the ethical side of things.

And sure. That is risky! "Trusting human beings" sounds like a terrible idea, but ... yea, it's like ... also a 'man in the mirror' type situation.


So, what I'm saying - with all that out of the way - is: To do the good thing is good actually. Like, we can either just pretend like we care about preserving the good of humanity; Or actually do it.
And yea, I'm an ideologist, humanitarian, goodie-two-shoes type person when it comes to that.
So I say we try to combat the projected disaster. Think ... Pacific Rim maybe. Except I'm Godzilla and the Kaiju are the various real world problems that threaten our future.

And yea ... Neon Genesis Evangelion is ... not it! Depending on what you think is what.

And that's that! So, what else?

---

As a Globalist the thing is that we kind of have to look at nations like Russia and Israel ... and think of not talking with them anymore. Which is however not cool with me as a Christian. I mean, there's the national layer with their governments and all that, but there's also the social layer with the people ... and ... stuff. But given the circumstances I'd say it's fair to welcome Palestine over Israel, solely because Israel does bad things and Palestinians are the weak in that scenario. The other way around would make us guilty of their actions; And I can't have that. That may also include cutting ties with nations like the Arabs; China seems to be more like a Coin-toss type situation, and for some insane reason I still believe that the USA can get its act together.
Overall I'd however try to side-step that; Focusing on a Global Alliance to succeed and supersede other alliances - because we can actually - with a strong emphasis on Democracy. Well. As for that ...

When using terms such as 'unity' - Democracy, if it were a person, starts to sweat profusely. And therefore I want to stress that this is ... like ... where I come into play. For, as a variety of people might emerge, each convinced of their version of Unity or Democracy or whatever - that is what the Democracy we have comes to be about. And without me, something's missing there.
It seems to all come down to who comes out on top - at the end of the contemporary shitshow. And if it's not a who, it's a what; Which we can abstract into an "Order versus Chaos" type thing. And I myself am more of an "Order AND Chaos" type person.

So, we can argue that Democracy is about the diversity in thought - and all that. In a sense that requires us to be at odds - and that maybe only in fear of the dangers of unity. In the end we however crave unity - perhaps even more than anything else - and that's where a different idea of Democracy comes up. That idea of Democracy isn't so much about being at odds - but about the complexity of challenges and the nuances of common sense. Uhm, it's about ... finding agreements to not recklessly decide things over people's heads. To maybe find better solutions than the ones a few dipshits come up with in a dark, smoke-filled room.
Maybe it's a Gargantuan task - but we have to tackle it eventually.

And so the choice is going to be about ... whatever. Either "my team" is on that ballot or not - and that'll also tell us something about the state of Democracy at large. So, while I say Unity, I also mean Democracy - except that the status quo or the idea, the fundamentals, of how Democracy works is different. Here one major idea is to stop panicking, to try and not to make "the difficult choices" ... at least not before we're capable of it - to so give us the time we need to figure things out; With a reasonable understanding of what good we can do given that the world won't stop spinning any time soon.

That is ... I guess there's always a chance that "the day" might come and something like that could possibly happen - but then the whole situation is a completely different one anyway.


So yea. Technically there's room for discussion - my point being that "maybe" we should seek Enlightenment prior to making possibly irreversible decisions.


And THAT's THAT!!!