Video games= Jekyll's potion?

Video games are one of the most popular forms of entertainment worldwide. Billions of sales have led to large growth in the amount of people playing and even watching games, with games like Hearthstone being popular on streaming site Twitch, and other games like Counter-strike: Global Offensive and DOTA 2 being popular competitively. But what drives people to play these games?

A lot of people say it relieves stress, and offers an escape from daily life. But perhaps for some there is a darker reason. Games like Grand Theft Auto allow people to partake in criminal activities they couldn't otherwise, similar to the potion Jekyll drinks to become Hyde. just as his potion lets him become as evil as he likes, video games let people do evil things they couldn't at their day job. This escapism, although not proven to be unhealthy, does show a certain amount of animosity in a person.

People can be sweet and kind in real life, but put a controller in their hands and their online personas can be murders, mercenaries, or just straight-up malevolent. There is no apparent reason for this, if you ask me, because there are plenty of games that are simply about managing small towns, or a person's life. These games are never covered by the media, of course, so most people are under the impression all games are violent. Regardless, it is only a small minority of gamers that become violent, similar to how Jekyll was in a minority of monster potion making scientists. I find it interesting that we often find them one and the same- digital monsters, and real monsters.

Baltimore "Riots" vs. Meursault's trial- What's the difference?

Lately, there has been a trend in the news condemning the actions of the Baltimore protesters, decrying their "immoral" acts as "savage" and often labeling these people as "savages" or "animals". The hero(es) in this situation, are, of course, the police, trained to Protect and Serve the American People(tm). Large media installations such as Fox and CNN decry the actions of the protesters  rioters, either claiming the unrest as unwarranted or that there Must Be A Better Way. In fact, it reminded me of Meursault's trial, although in this case it's the opposite. instead of being judged for their emotions and purpose, these protesters are being judged by their actions.

 These protests started as a result of the death of Freddie Gray, a young black man who died a week after being placed in police custody. He did not receive proper medical attention from the police, and slipped into a coma and died. Protesters in Baltimore are angry at this, and also the continued racism and exploitation they face in the lower income areas of the city. However, similar to Meursault's prosecutor, the mass media refuse to focus on this, and instead show shot after shot of burning buildings and smashed cars- rather, burning shops filled with things that these people could not afford, and smashed police cars, the same cars that constantly patrolled their neighborhoods, looking for people to arrest. In the way the prosecutor, would not look at Meursault's actions, and rather his soul, the media refuses to look at why people in Baltimore are angry, and instead scream and finger-wag about some broken windows and a burnt-out CVS. (It's also worth noting that a lot of the damage caused by the more rambunctious were actually cleaned up by volunteer members of the community, although the mass media would never show this).

Also inversely similar to the trial, was how the prosecutor compared Meursault's murdering to the patricide case, while the news outlets have not touched on other riots caused by rowdy white sports fans. These people were just "overly excited". When looking at numbers, it's easy to say, "well those weren't as bad as Baltimore is right now" but that's not the only part of the discussion. There were no judgements made about the people in those situations, no derying of those actions as "savage" or their perpetrators as "animals". It's just the latest double standard in the American game of Conservative vs. Liberal, which in the end is all the media will ever care about. Not the real people, who have taken to the streets after being downtrodden for so long.

The Power of Capitalism Over the Oppressed

When we think about what we want out of our lives, we imagine a future where we have everything we need and are perfectly content. The specifics of that dream vary from person to person, but at the basic level what we want is happiness. The problem is, there is a bloating, greedy middleman who stands in the way of our goals. At first he appears charming, looking dapper in his top hat and monocle. This middleman is capitalism, a pyramid scheme where oligarchs, the rich, and their children rise to the top, and the poor and oppressed, such as Nora from A Doll's House, sink to the bottom.

Ideally, in our American system, everybody succeeds and gets what they want. People work according to their skill and educational ability, are able to satisfy their needs, and then provide for their children so they can do better than them. But there are many problems with this idea that appear in its execution. 

First of all, if you can't get an education, either because you lack money or don't speak english, you will go nowhere. You can only afford the worst housing and basic food, scrounging for what little you can. If you lose your job, it's over. If you have to work to survive do you have a choice? If you don't have a choice, are you truly free? People at the top could be out of jobs for years before they even had to sell their summer home, let alone apply to every chain in town. The middle class is also mostly safe, often having savings to live off of for a few months before they find a new job. But economically disadvantaged people, such as women and minorities, will always be forced to work. Nora, after the conclusion of the play, will inevitably be working 80+ hour work weeks until she dies of stress or starvation. Our welfare system, although helpful in feeding the poor, does not help people who are just treading water.

I am fortunate in my own life to have food on the table, clothes on my back, and luxuries such as television and internet. But even if my family lived on the bare essentials, I would not be able to afford the base sticker price of colleges. Since my SAT scores are good, I qualify for some scholarships, but people who do not have as good an economic standing (which often correlates to SAT scores) have more trouble getting into college. The rich can send their kids wherever they like, sometimes even illicitly. Their kids get a job at daddy's company, and are secure for the rest of their lives.

In A Doll's House, we see hiw the aforementioned Nora uses money as a means for survival, due to the fact that her husband is sick. She takes out a loan which she cannot repay to the liking of her bank(er), and is reduced to little more than a slave because of her debt. Her case is special because she js freed by her debtor, but her newfound independence is marred by the fact that she must constantly work, pouring labor and money into a system that will reward her with a paltry existence, far from the oasis that capitalism promises as a reward for servitude. There's a reason we call our planned  happy future in America the American Dream; it's because you have to be asleep to believe it.

Love & Independence

One of the questions we didn't discuss during our Socratic Seminar on The Fountainhead was a question towards the end of the sheet, asking what the novel's message of independence meant to our current lives. Personally, I find the fact that the book tells you to be independent to be ironic, in the sense that saying "Don't tell me what to do" is hypocritical. But, nonetheless, the book does point out something important- that you should be taking control of your own life instead of being "dominated by others". 

I would say this relates very largely to my own life at the moment because me and my girlfriend broke up very recently. I'll skip the bitter complaining and jump straight to the point: I was being "dominated" by her, and when she broke up with me, especially the way she did, I realized that, not only was the feeling mutual, but the relationship was downright bad for me. 

Looking back over our five month history together, my ex was never the one to show feelings first, or do anything in our relationship first. Sure, she would join in once I started, our would hang out if I asked, but she never asked me if I wanted to hang out or do anything. You might think this meant I was the one in charge in our relationship, but really, I was the desperate crackhead, and she the bemused and obliging dealer. 

So what does The Fountainhead's message have to do with my relationship troubles? It actually teaches me some very important lessons; not only should I not rely on the opiate of love to make myself happy, I should also not base my sense of self-worth off of what some slimy succubus thinks of me. This is my life; I am the captain of my soul, and the ship is leaving port with one less piece of deadweight in tow.