A few weeks ago, a reporter on ESPN named Skip Bayless, whom I'm sure many of you have heard of and most of you can't stand, made a comment about Russell Westbrook who is the point guard of the Oklahoma City Thunder. He said that he was too shot happy and needed to be more of a team player. Now when I first heard about this, I took it with a grain of salt because, well, its Skip Bayless. The man showboats and sensationalizes everything. He'll take a stance on anything or any one just to have an opinion. For those of you who don't know, Russell Westbrook is the second best player on his team in the NBA. His next comment immediately following that remark gave me a quizzical look. He compared himself to the great "Pistol" Pete when he was in high school. He doesn't really look like the athletic type, so I let it sit out there for a short while, and soon enough, I saw an answer to my initial doubts about this. Skip rode the bench in high school and didn't even make varsity until his senior year, where he averaged less than 3 points per game. I wondered if anybody would actually call him out on this, and sure enough, Michigan's own Jalen Rose came the the call.
Skip predictably acted sheepish and tried to change the topic as soon as he could. This kind of stuff is happening all of the media, not just in sports, but I seem to see it more and more often on sports channels like ESPN and personally, it gets really old, really fast. I'd rather have Sportcenter on 24/7 than listen to some of the people that come on some of their shows and try to act like they now things about sports or have some entitled opinion. I know that rating are what drive television and marketing and its a failed system. But when your the self proclaimed "worldwide leader in sports", I'd think you could move that base standard a little higher than everyone else. ESPN has more leeway than probably any other corporation to not have as much flamboyance on their shows, but it seems like they just fall into the habit of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Maybe this is just a sports fans opinion of what an ideal sports coverage channel should be like, but I'd like to think that I'm not the only person who gets annoyed whenever Colin from Sports Nation or Skip Bayless or several other announcers say things that make you wish you could just change the channel and wait until they were done talking. This almost seems like the game of who can attract more viewers and make more of an impression has reduced the standards of television of all kinds. Maybe ESPN is just moving there more slowly than others, but I just hopes that the like of Jersey Shore and the Real Housewives don't some how get into the ideas of the producers of ESPN as a way to "attract a new audience." I might just give up my hope for TV altogether and just use websites to get my sports news.
We talked in class about war games recently, but I read an article that put a little different spin on "war games" that I hadn't really given much thought about. The article is here if you care to read it, but I'll just give a brief summary of what its about to those that don't want to read it. The article talks about how the U.S. Navy is recruiting video game hackers to start a project in which the hackers will go into video game systems in order to find potential terrorists or the transmission of top secret information.
Courtesy of The Mod Shop
The thought of this intrigued me in more than ways than one. It first made wonder what kind of hacker would want to send his or her list of hacks that they have done or been able to achieve to the federal government. The thought of telling the very entity that you are most likely breaking the rules/laws of usually isn't in the best interest of the applicant. I wonder if there is some kind of amnesty or anonymity concept that would be employed in order to actually be worth the time of someone who is more qualified for the task, even if how they got to be that talented isn't necessarily "by the book." The second thing that came to mind was that this might seem like a breach of privacy, but then I thought about it a little more. If there are people already capable of doing this on their own through practice on systems that you and I use already, then its not that big of a jump to have some of them working for the government in a productive way that can also be regulated or at least better controlled. I know the whole idea of Big Brother looking over your shoulder makes a lot of people cringe, but when you are already susceptible to having your information tracked by people that aren't associated with the government, why not at least get some benefit from it?
But back to the games. The way that these hackers work to get inside systems to either retrieve data, change data, or corrupt files is nothing new to anyone with some knowledge of the technology in today's world. The fact that the Navy thinks that they could potentially track down terrorists through the video game systems that everyone plays has a touch of genius to it. Many video games, especially first person shooters are used as a supplement to military training by armed forces around the world. It's not far fetched to think that terrorists could be using the games that we love to play to actually train soldiers on how to act in war. I know that our own military uses games like Call of Duty and Battlefield as a way to help hone the skills of soldiers in a cheap and effective way. The online features of these systems could also easily be used to transfer information either through a typed out message, or a through audio messages, or even during game play. It seems like it would be very difficult to track and find possible terrorists just because of the sheer immensity of what this would entail and whether or not once something is found if it can even be used to execute a search warrant or the like. I still think its possible, I just have my doubts about the plausibility of it.
I thought this was a interesting way that games can be used in real life to possibly save lives and that this could potentially be a way to locate terrorists that are hard to find and might overlook something as simple as a gamer tag. I'd be interested to hear what everyone else thinks about this.
Recently, Ryan and I gave our minor quest IV presentation on
imagining the University of Michigan in the 21st century. However, I
felt that it would be interesting to explore the other option, ways to improve
UC-256, through a blog post.
To
begin, I think that the structure behind “guilds” should be altered. Currently,
working within guilds is encouraged, but it’s not necessary at all to receive a
top grade. In fact, the only assignment that actually requires some sort of
group work at all is the book quest, which only consists of 1000 points.
Everything else is individual work. In fact, nearly all of the guild points are
merely the cumulative individual scores for certain assignments, including blog
posting, minor quests, and major quests. Thus, I believe that there should be
more assignments where group work is required since guild points are really
just the sum of individual points.
Additionally,
guilds should only be created after the initial drop/add deadline. Smaller
guilds are required to do more work for the same amount of points. For
instance, in an 8-person guild, each individual only needs to receive 750
points from blog posting to max out the guild’s score. However, in a 4 person
guild, each individual would need 1500 points, which requires at least an
additional 3 blog posts per group member. The same applies to all of the other
assignments including minor quests and major quests since the guild score is
merely the sum of the few highest individual scores. Therefore, bigger guilds
have more of an opportunity to receive the maximum amount of points because of
their strength in numbers. An 8-person guild can have twice as many attempts to
receive a high major quest score compared to a 4-person guild.
Furthermore,
one of the main themes in UC-256 is competition. I think that guilds should
compete against each other for bonus points in certain assignments because it
would foster more of a team mentality within a guild. Also, competition is a
tool for motivation, and it would make the class more interactive. In the class
that Ben taught, guilds competed against each other for bonus points in a
debate about certain NCAA basketball topics. This was a fun and interactive way
of guilds competing against one another, and I think there should be other, similar
activities introduced into the course.
Finally,
I think that there should be a requirement for participating in lectures where guest
speakers talk. Some of these lectures can get a little awkward because there
isn’t enough participation by us students. This is partly because some speakers
perhaps aren’t as engaging as others, but that shouldn’t be an excuse for the
lack of class discussion. Perhaps each guild should be required to contribute
to the discussion each class (it would get too out of control if each
individual student was required to do so).
What
do you think of these proposed changes to UC-256? Do you have any ideas to make
this class even better?
Friday, April 13, 2012
Is Facebook a competition? I was looking at my friends on Facebook the other day and noticed that I didn't really know 75% of them. They just happened to be people that I passed at some point or know me through a friend or I know them through a friend. But I don't personally know this many people. As discussed in lecture that one time, we discussed social networking and how many people you could be connected to. It only took a few to then be connected to many. Is this the reason we desire to have the highest number of Facebook friends possible?
Everyday I seem to get a new friend request. Sometimes I have no idea who they are or where they are from. Sometimes, it's people that went to my high school whether I was in the school at the same time or not. I am always more inclined to accept those from my school even if I have never heard their name before. I think we need to start realizing games are games and we need to separate that from the internet. Trying to have as many friends as possible to seem cool may hurt you in the end. You never know who you could be accepting.
This picture is a good representation of everyone compiling together because they may have one mutual friend. Don't let this fool you; you may not know the same people, everyone might just be accepting and so it is a false mutual friend and you are left with a stranger--just like the person in the picture.
Let me start by saying that I know very little about
chemistry.
Last week in class, we heard Professor Brian Coppola discuss
how the way in which chemicals combine and form is all based on statistics, on
the probability that a group will be “same” or “different.” according to
Professor Coppola, in most cases, the probability that a group of molecules,
atoms, or materials will be “different” or disorganized is much larger than the
alternative. In effect, chemical compounds are likely to be disorganized.
This conclusion caught me off guard. Last week I attended
TEDx, and a speaker, Dr. Sharon Glotzer, talked fully about entropy, what it
means in chemistry but also how it could relate to our lives. She continued to
repeat: “There are more ways for the objects to be ordered than disordered.”
Maybe I’m looking at this all the wrong way, or maybe I just
don’t understand chemistry and misheard her, but isn’t this conclusion the
opposite? I specifically recall her showing a simulation of a bunch of
molecules being thrown into a box. She showed that as the box was shaken, the
molecules began to assemble geometrically, limiting the amount of extra space
between molecules and compacting the volume of the group (if anyone can find a video of this, please post. I'm out of luck.)
How does this relate
to the simulation that Professor Coppola showed yesterday with the marbles? As
he shook the vile, the marbles didn’t form any sort of pattern or form.
Instead, they were displaced randomly and remained so.
A potential conclusion could be that his demonstration
wasn’t attempting to show the geometric organization that could or could not
result, but rather how there was no organization in where the red or green
marbles would end up. If someone clear this topic up for me, that would be
great.
For now, I’m going to take Wikipedia’s stance on entropy:
“In classical thermodynamics, the concept of entropy is
defined phenomenologically by the second law of thermodynamics, which states
that the entropy of an isolated system always increases or remains constant.
Thus, entropy is also a measure of the tendency of a process, such as a
chemical reaction, to be entropically favored, or to proceed in a particular
direction. It determines that thermal energy always flows spontaneously from regions
of higher temperature to regions of lower temperature, in the form of heat.
These processes reduce the state of order of the initial systems, and therefore
entropy is an expression of disorder or randomness.”
“In statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure
of the number of ways in which a system may be arranged, often taken to be a
measure of "disorder" (the higher the entropy, the higher the
disorder). This definition describes the entropy as being proportional to the
natural logarithm of the number of possible microscopic configurations of the
individual atoms and molecules of the system (microstates) which could give
rise to the observed macroscopic state (macrostate) of the system.”
In general, I’m reading that entropy is more associated with
disorder rather than order. What was Dr. Glotzer referring to?
I think this concept of organization is relatable to not
only molecules and materials, but to our everyday lives. “There are more ways
for the objects to be disordered than ordered.” This could be the philosophy
behind our instincts to organize our days, organize people, and organize games.
Just as molecules are statistically more likely to be disordered, so are our
lives (maybe a stretch, but maybe not). I guess, all I’m saying is that next
time you have no idea what’s going on and feel like you have no control over
the chaos surrounding you…blame entropy.
Here is a very entertaining mix on entropy and with a very cool trick that may involve entropy:
(hint: the trick is not real.)
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Growing up with a brother, he was always into the newest
game station or video game. I however did not find that stuff as entertaining.
I loved to play with dolls and stuffed animals with the occasional board game.
I also loved going on the computer to play games. When I found out about this
website, it was everything I loved.
Neopets was a site in which these cute animals lived in
their own world. As their owner, I had to feed them and keep them warm and
healthy. In order to do this, you would have to play games on the site. With
these games, you would win coins. These coins represented money. In this
virtual world for the neopets to live in, I would go shopping for all of the
necessities that my neopets would need to survive. Often, my neopet would not
like my food of choice. The goal would then be to pick out the best snacks so
that my neopet would be as satisfied as possible. Under each neopet, there
would be a status stating if the neopet was ok or hungry or anything else.
It would get very competitive too. I would compete with all
of my friends to see who could have the most neopets and who could keep their
neopets alive and happy the longest and who had the most coins and highest
scores in the games. In the game, it was an alternate reality for us to have
interesting animals as pets and they could have anything they wanted as long as
I earned enough coins.
This is somewhat similar to Second Life or SIMS. Both of
these are online virtual worlds where you can create who you want to be and how
you want your life to be. Only with neopets, it was with exotic, cute animals.
I thoroughly enjoyed playing with my neopets. Sometimes, I wish I could
remember my login information so that I could experience a part of my childhood
all over again.
Over the past two class periods, many ideas have been presented to reinvent the education system at UM. Yesterday, the Colbert Report on Comedy Central highlighted the University of Michigan among other school as "doing [higher education] right." If you haven't seen the video, check it out:
What do you make of this claim? I have no doubt that UM is an incredible school. I mean, we all chose to go here. But many of the presentations in class examined the problems with education on campus, and offered feasible and innovative solutions to these problems. Is Richard Hersh wrong?
As a side note, I wonder if there is a way to present our class' ideas to the university. Maybe we could actually affect the way in which education on campus is carried out. There is a student group on campus called rEDesign (check out their Twitter feed) that is setting out to change the education system, however, it only deals with K-12. Is a similar group present on campus with a goal to change higher education?
I recently attended a lecture & panel discussion through
the departments of Communications, American Culture, and Screen Arts &
Cultures called the Goldring Symposium. Entitled “New Trends in Popular Culture:
From Reality Television to Hip-Hop and Jerkin’”, it had 3 Michigan alums talk
in their respective areas of contemporary music, women’s studies, and
television production.
The one speaker that stood out to me as a Screen Arts &
Cultures student was Joel Zimmer, the head of current production for his
company, 495 Productions. His company produces solely reality television
content for networks like MTV and NBC amongst others. Of the most well known
shows he has produced are the hit series “The Jersey Shore” and “A Shot at
Love” with Tila Tequila.
Joel’s approach to delivering a talk was less academic than
the other presenters – it was conversational and allowed the audience to really
understand his role in the business. Joel supervises all the shows 495 is
producing, which he described could be anywhere from 3-10 shows at any given
point during the year.
I will explain how reality TV really doesn’t play by any set
rules through several points, each of which fall under a single principle: Reality
television is an enticing genre for producers because the content is cheap to
produce and it generates a sizable audience – including some of the largest on
network television.
1.The crazier the subjects, the better. When
casting for reality shows, Joel made it very clear that they’re not out to find
individuals that embody characteristics of someone that can relate to the
masses – It’s actually the complete opposite. They seek people that are crazy
enough to be entertaining, but not so off-the-wall that they would be too big
of a risk for the producer’s investment.
2.The structures of the stories are completely up
in the air. When a series is green
lit to enter production, the producer only has a general idea of the messages
the series should convey to an audience. The individual storylines that drive
the story through each episode don’t emerge until the middle stages of
post-production. Because of this, there are literally endless possibilities for
what each episode can communicate.
3.The director has no say in shaping the content –
all the power lies within the producers and executives. The director’s role on
set if solely to make sure production runs smoothly. As you can imagine,
though, it is impossible to actually direct the actions of the talent in this
genre. Similar to the second point where the story takes shape toward the
middle of post-production, the decisions made are almost completely dictated by
the producer’s desire for profits, not a director’s creative vision.
Can you think
of any additional ways in which this genre disregards conventional rules of scripted television to
increase viewership?
Yesterday, Tom and I presented a new initiative that can
bring the University into its tercentenary called MProve. Personally, when defining this
initiative, I was attempting to respond to the popularity of entrepreneurship
in today’s society. Many of the world’s most successful, inspirational, and
influential people got their status with an idea, persistence, and
creativity—not a college degree. It makes you think, what is the value of
higher education?
Neither Zuckerberg, Jobs, or Gates graduated from college.
Source: http://dailypicksandflicks.com
Think of all of the times you have crammed for a test,
pulled an all-nighter to finish an essay before a deadline, and sat through
class scrolling through Facebook. Have you ever thought to yourself: What am I
doing? What is the importance of this test, paper, or class? Why am I in
school? MProve (although fictional) would like to individualize and revitalize
the UM education system to encourage exploration and promote more intuitive, involved
learning. Isn’t that what we’re here for anyway?
If you have forgotten or weren’t paying attention in class,
the following were the main provisions of MProve:
The New Classroom
Anything: All UM students could sign up for any
University class regardless of college, and could even create their own if a
professor or GSI were willing to teach the subject
Anytime: All lectures would be available online
through video streaming. Students would still have the option to attend
in-person
Anywhere: Discussion and Section would be based
on participation through social media to integrate academia with everyday
activities, two entities that are typically viewed as distinct institutions
Evaluation
Grades and GPA’s would be substituted with
Performance Reports, offering a more qualitative analysis of a students
participation, mastery, and effort
These ideas took a lot of thought, and we considered many
counterarguments. For example...
Q: How would the new evaluation system set back UM students
comparatively to other universities when applying for jobs and admission into grad schools?
My response: The officials of the university would make a
statement insisting that the evaluation system is actually more significant than
GPA. This could further define The Michigan Difference.
After the questions in class, though, I
continued to think about the ideas involved with MProve and how they could be
altered. Would there still be an Honors program? Should students be able to
have a major?
My first instincts: No (after reconsidering what I said in
class) and Yes. The point of the new system would be to allow students’
interests and passions to speak for their character and abilities. An Honors
system would reinstate the same competitive nature of a GPA, and majors, to
some, are important in self-conceptualization. However, I do not think students
should have to apply to these majors (Business, Organizational Studies, Public
Policy, etc.). Students should study what they want, and the UM admissions
office should strive to accept students that can maintain the prestige involved
with each major.
What do you think about the ideas involved with MProve, and
are they possible or even feasible?
My parents have always told me to put down the phone and
talk at the dinner table. I always got annoyed with them and asked why they
cared so much. They would tell me that it was rude and dinnertime was family
time, a time to catch up on everyone’s day. I never thought I’d actually admit
my parents were right about something and I was wrong. But I must do it now. I
was completely wrong and technology has truly corrupted communication.
After a long day of classes, all I want to do is be able to
catch up with my friends at dinner. With all of the new cool things and apps
the iPhone has provided us with, some of my friends can’t peal their eyes away
from their phone. When I ask them a question, I get nothing but silence. I then
have to repeat my question until I break their focus and they actually hear me.
I find it rude that games like scramble
and words with friends are consuming
my friends’ attention and me and my other friends sit and watch.
I didn’t realize how consuming these games really were until
I heard my friends were communicating through the chat provided by the game. I
thought texting was getting out of control—giving people a way out from having
to talk to each other personally. I think talking through the game and not even
getting the person’s phone number has taken things to a new extreme.
When people are asking others to their date parties and
formals via words with friends or draw something, I think that technology
has pushed things too far. I am shocked that people no longer have the courage
or etiquette to ask in person to something such as a date.
In my opinion, it didn’t start with phones. Computers and
game stations are also a source for this lack of communication face to face. I
remember growing up I would hear my brother from the room next door talking to
someone. When I would walk in, no one was on the phone or there with him. I
would find him playing on his X-box. When I asked who he was talking to, he
replied with a sign-in name for X-box. X-box decided to come out with something
called X-box Live. With this, players could interact with one another by
talking to each other while playing against each other.
Now is it just me? Or does someone need to do something
about the lack of communication in the world?
Monday, April 9, 2012
Have you ever thought about everyday activities as games?
Cause I sure have. Just the other night I was going out to dinner with some
friends by Main Street. We were parking in a lot near the restaurant. When we
got to the lot, it was full. There were two exits and two entrances, one of
each on opposite sides of the lot. As one car would leave, another would be
able to enter. The box where you had to push for a ticket would say ‘lot full’ until one car would leave.
The minute that happened, the box would change to say ‘press button for a ticket’.
We would see countless cars ahead of us get beaten by a car
on the other side to enter. It became a game, one that was exciting and
entertaining. It was funny to see who would get to the button first when the
box gave the ok. When it came to our turn, we were so entertained and thought
the process was so funny that we started thinking of tactics for when it was
our turn. My friend driving, when we pulled up to the box, unbuckled her seat,
lowered the window, and climbed half way out of the car. She pressed the button
over and over again so that when the box would change from full to not full,
she would be the first one to press the button.
It is so funny to see how competitive people get with everyday
tasks. This also relates to wolverine access and how registration is some sort
of a competition. Now that it is near time to register for our classes for fall
2012, people are starting to get competitive with each other. People tend to
not tell others about certain classes so that they themselves will not get
closed out. Also, when getting your registration time and date, it goes by the
number of credits you currently have. This motivates people to compete with one
another to have the highest number of credits to get the best registration
time. Then it becomes a game of waiting.
You sit, starring at your computer screen, watching as the
number of available seats in the classes you have backpacked slowly decreases. Finally,
it is your turn. So many of the classes you chose are closed or have waitlists
and you must scramble in an effort to find an open class or a spot on the
waiting list; you have to be quick though before someone else beats you to it.
Enrolling in classes becomes a stressful and vicious fight—often leaving the
person to feel like a victor or defeated.
While March Madness was still going
on, I was wondering about the implications of having a playoff system in
college football. This is a topic that’s been hotly contested over the years,
but I think it’s finally time for a change and that a playoff system should be
implemented. I believe there would be an increase in competition with the
potential to contend for the BCS championship despite not being the #1 or #2
team, but instead, through winning a playoff of perhaps 8 teams.
In 2009, the Boise State Football
team was undefeated, and they went 13-0 through the season. However, Boise
State’s biggest weakness was their strength of schedule, but that was largely
only because they were part of the WAC (Western Athletic Conference) so their
schedule was not as difficult as the two teams playing in the BCS Championship
– Florida and Oklahoma. I believe that Boise State should have had the
opportunity to compete for the BCS Championship but because of the lack of a
playoff system, they had to settle for winning the Fiesta Bowl against another
undefeated team, TCU.
This year, the BCS championship was
Alabama vs. LSU, a rematch of their regular season game. A playoff system would
have been much more interesting since it would’ve allowed similar caliber teams
like Oklahoma State and Oregon for the opportunity to win the national
title.
There
is a playoff system for football at the high school level and there’s one that
exists in the NFL, yet there are only a series of bowl games for the college
level. Personally, I think that a playoff system is much fairer for all college
teams because they will have a much greater opportunity to compete for a
playoff spot rather than a #1 or #2 seed to compete for the title in the
current NCAA football “post-season” structure. Similarly, competition would
increase because of the greater potential for playing for the national title
rather settling for a lesser bowl game. What do you think? Should there be a
playoff system for college football, or is the current system sufficient?
One of the main criticisms of the
NBA in recent years is that the league lacks competitive balance. The 2008
Boston Celtics won the NBA title with star players Paul Pierce, Ray Allen,
Kevin Garnett, and a fast-maturing Rajon Rondo. Ever since then, superstars
seem to want to pair up or triple up on a single team to have the best chance
to win the championship.For
instance, LeBron James, Chris Bosh, and Dwayne Wade all joined the Miami Heat,
and they each took a $15 million pay cut so the finances would work out.
James and Bosh left their
respective cities Cleveland and Toronto because they wanted to win a
championship and they wanted the bigger Miami market. Recently, we’ve seen all
over ESPN that more and more star players aren’t happy with were they are, or
where they were before being traded. Multiple top fifteen players have been
traded to teams that already had another star player – Chris Paul to the L.A.
Clippers with Blake Griffin and Carmelo Anthony to the New York Knicks with
Amare Stoudemire. Before Chris Paul was traded to the Clippers, he mentioned a
possibility of teaming up with Stoudemire and Anthony in New York City and
forming their own “Big Three” to compete with the Miami Heat. Additionally,
before Dwight Howard decided to stay in Orlando for another year, he had a wish
list of teams that consisted of the New Jersey Nets, Los Angeles Lakers, and
the Dallas Mavericks, all of which already have at least one other star player
and play in big markets.
Of
course, there are teams that have drafted exceptionally well and can compete
with the big market teams such as the Thunder. However, it seems that these
types of teams are becoming exceedingly rare with the type of recognition that
NBA players are seeking. It seems the majority of players would prefer to play
in bigger markets to receive more recognition and fame, which could potentially
lead to more money from endorsement deals.
With so many star players trying to
leave their smaller market teams for the bigger markets that already have a star
player, the competitive balance in the NBA is seemingly declining. Most people
believe there are perhaps only 3-4 teams in each division (out of 15 each) that
actually have a chance to compete for the NBA title. Do you think that the NBA’s
competitive balance is out of order, and if so, what can be done to fix it?
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
So I walked into my friend's room the other day and I saw she was playing Second Life. I was shocked to see someone playing the virtual world for real when I only looked at the game for the class. She loves the game and constantly plays. I could barely work it but she really got the hang of it.
When I asked her about it, she really went into detail about what it has been like. It is as if she is living in an alternate reality; living by different rules of society. What she likes about this idea of a virtual world is that she can do what she wants without a care in the world about what other people think. My friend loves to be able to take a break from her life and do other things. With Second Life, she can go to the beach even when it is cold outside. The game is set by rules where she shops but needs money. She gets to take a getaway by going on vacation. She has the ability to dress strange and not worry about what others are saying because she doesn't personally know them and doesn't have to play by the rules of society.
This idea reminds me of what we read last night for the quiz about free will. Like we discussed, free will is no longer truly free. Now, people's decisions are made to bend in the direction society demands. No one can make their own decisions truly anymore because they don't do everything they want. People constantly hide their true desires because they fear they will become social outcasts. I think this is truly tragic. No one should be afraid to do what they want and be who they are just because society tells them so.
