Skykid rants about kids on his lawn. Dumb ones.

[Stevas]

Well IQ is total fucking bullshit anyway, so it's not worth mentioning.

Acid King's point about IQ scores steadily rising is perfectly true (Flynn effect notwithstanding) and IQ scores are one of the only metrics we have for intelligence. Dismissing the evidence that we're actually getting smarter not dumber seems a bit off-hand. What's bullshit about it?

It could be bullshit (as Skykid puts it - with his usual eloquence) because it's just one measure of intellectual capacity (as are any tests in the current "education system"): how many people do you know who are particularly adept at communicating with other humans on all levels (emotionally intelligent), but eat shit at even getting halfway to approaching logic? And vice versa? Or those who have amazing memories, but are almost painfully incapable of applying themselves to anything outside of a pop quiz?

Human intelligence is something humans themselves seemingly don't understand, let alone actually appear capable of measuring accurately; that IQ tests (or any standardised testing based on logic, reasoning, and memory) have survived for this long as the yardstick is fundamentally part of the problem, and something I've already touched on - they're good for measuring somebody's IQ, and nothing else. The I in IQ is misleading. Yes, it stands for Intelligence. A human came up with that.

Put another way: IQ is just that - IQ - but for a true measure of the intelligence of any given human we need more: some way of measuring verbal skills, emotional and empathic response, short term AND long term memory, etc.

IQ scores rising is an indicator of humanity getting better at scoring highly in IQ tests.

You could believe that's also an indicator of rising overall intelligence.

I choose not to.

[PAPER/ARTILLERY]

I understand that IQ isn't necessarily the best barometer of intelligence but in the absence of a better metric I'm not sure what else we're left with. And in fairness it does gauge reasoning, logic and analysis which are pretty fair indicators of intelligence. In not sure I agree that emotional and empathetic response is part of true intelligence either.

[jonny5]

IQ is a good measure for the capacity for intelligence, but as with most things, having the capacity does not necessarily mean it is put to good use.

[PAPER/ARTILLERY]

Now that I do agree with.

[Stevas]

I understand that IQ isn't necessarily the best barometer of intelligence but in the absence of a better metric I'm not sure what else we're left with.

So you agree with me then, insomuch as: we're left with nothing.
Because everyone believes that's enough.
I don't believe it is.
But then: I'm not everyone.

And in fairness it does gauge reasoning, logic and analysis which are pretty fair indicators of intelligence.

They're fair indicators of a certain type of intelligence.
Which brings me to:

In not sure I agree that emotional and empathetic response is part of true intelligence either.

Which means you're actually part of the problem, here.

Not having a pop, just pointing out that you not entertaining the idea that there is a certain type of intelligence required to, say, manage a team of other humans (how many managers you had you thought were dumb, right? And SOMEONE thought they deserved to be where they were...), or maybe counsel others on dealing with grief, depression, legal matters (yeah, been there, dealt with the human who has qualifications coming out of his ears, but is incapable of adequately communicating on anything other than an entirely professional level when the situation demands some... humanity), or deal with any unfamiliar critical situation under pressure... just highlighting that a mindset rooted in the place that says that intelligence can only be linked to more easily measured factors (reasoning, logic, memory), and not to the more "wooly", difficult-to-measure ones (empathy, emotional control, verbal acuity) - these are ways of thinking that hold us all back on discovering the true potential of the human brain.

And the way humanity appears to be heading, to me... y'all really need to start paying some attention to all that.

[Stevas]

Yeah, we're probably getting tied up in symantics, here.

As your man said, there: it's a measure of something, just not necessarily intelligence.

And we kinda need that, now.

[Acid King]

The rub is that if you say x is causing y, you need to define and measure y somehow. You can say IQ is a bad measure of smarts or intelligence, but unless you have another definition and measurement you believe is better then you aren't offering anything of substance. You can say IQ is a bullshit measure, but what else are you going to go by? What are you basing your claim on? If you truly believe we're left with nothing then there's really not much to talk about here.

[PAPER/ARTILLERY]

Huh, I've never been described as "part of the problem" before. Your points are well taken Stevas, I suppose when I think of intelligence I associate it with the drier more scientific aspects of mentality. As you say though we are drifting into semantics here.

[Stevas]

Let me put it this way. To get a little more personal with you.

I have a girlfriend.

No, really. I know that might come as something of a shock to you; this being, after all, a forum that even the fucking internet itself sees as somewhat nerdy.

Now, I'm the one with the qualifications. I am - so I'm told, by, well, society - the "intelligent" one.

She doesn't have them.

And yet, she is almost infinitely more capable of dealing with other humans, in comparison to me, to the point where it's almost painfully depressing. (Okay, I say almost? It is. It is that.)
It's not even fucking funny, man. She puts them at ease, everyone loves her, she gets on with them (whisper it: she would actually be pretty damn good at manipulating them, too)... if I even had a fraction of that sort of "intelligence" - hell, I'd be in charge of this planet already, I'm sure.
I'd probably have had you put to death by now.
No, wait... scratch that: you'd be fighting to the death with Skykid for my pleasure (to the Kirk/Spock battle tune, naturally).

Now, if we both went for one of these IQ tests? I can almost guarantee you I'd be the one you humans thought was the "more intelligent". And probably by quite a distance. There'd be nothing factoring in how capable she is dealing with humanity. Nothing.

I think someone already perfectly encapsulated this scenario earlier: Bullshit.

And it needs to change, because we need more people like her around.

Look around, guys.

See the couple at the dinner table, in silence, texting each other.
See the family members chuckling to themselves over each others comments on facebook, sitting on the same sofa, while some reality TV shite blares out to an otherwise-occupied disinterested audience.
See the generation who grew up sitting in their room hurling abuse down a mic while playing a game.
See the species that created language forgetting how to communicate.

We need to stop placing so much emphasis on logic, memory and reasoning. Even the best software house needs managing.

Humanity is phasing out humanity.

I don't have a solution; if I did, I wouldn't be talking about it here. Humans have settled on the quick fix, the solution that takes the least time, gives the most bang for the buck. I can see why: any solution I came up with would cost more, take more time, and be far too much effort to be deemed "worth it". Also, humans are very lazy. There's that too.

A starting point, though - for me - would be to not actually even infer that IQ is "overall intelligence" (maybe even change the name to something more appropriate, eg: LMRQ (Logic, Memory and Reasoning)) - which humanity has got rather too comfortable doing, recently.
That is: I'm not saying it's a bad measure of what it actually measures, the problem is more that it's become the fallback position for determining someone's overall intelligence.

Hence my comment on symantics, earlier.

Edit: I guess the question raised from all this is: what IS intelligence?

Wiki:
"Intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving."

Google:
"The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."

Stevas:
"Being able to deal with shit. Yes, any shit. Yes, that shit, just there. That too. Yes - look, what part of 'any shit' did you not get?"

[Acid King]

I agree with you there there are more dimensions to intelligence than logic/reason/etc, but I don't think that speaks to a dumbing down of people via shitty entertainment, as is Skykid's suggestion. That's just technology changing the way people interact. There's no solution to it because it's an organic outgrowth of human+technology, short of you becoming world emperor naturally. You may have gut reaction to that kind of stuff but, as you said earlier, the rational part of you knows there's a non-trivial chance that the world is changing and you want those damn kids and their music to get off your lawn. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but if you insist that things are getting objectively worse, that shitty music and bad youtube videos are causing some horrible decline in people's intelligence ("dumbing down the population by way of prolific and patently idiotic media") you need something cleaner cut and much more quantifiable. Otherwise, it's just like, your opinion, man.

[charlie chong]

Recently I've enjoyed Russell Brand's anti establishment commentaries too. I wish all celebrities were as conscientious.

russell bland ??? really. you truly are a dimwit skykid.
he's so anti establishment he is going out with the daughter of this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Goldsmith

[Skykid]

russell bland ??? really. you truly are a dimwit skykid. :

Well if I'm a dimwit I'd better order you a ticket for next year's special needs holiday camp. Either that or a trip to a rehabilitation centre for people who cooked their brains on drugs.

Right after we get you a keyboard with a working caps lock, of course.

Seriously had enough of your fucking shit. Next time you complain about a relapse and sticking a needle in your arm I'll be sure to send you a smiley.

[Stevas]

That's a few different conversations you're trying to smash together, there, Acid.

I kinda agreed with Skykid that shit appears to be getting shitter, but as you say - and unlike him - I'll concede that there's a chance that's just me "getting old" (damn my scientist outlook/lack of conviction [delete where appropriate]).

I've since moved on to discuss other things, here.

As in:

I believe there is an over-reliance on testing based on logic, memory and reasoning as a way of categorising levels of "intelligence" - and it's maybe even holding humans back, as a species.

Consequently, I also believe that using rising IQ levels as counter"proof" to the belief that humanity is getting "dumber" based on [whatever - not important] is, perhaps, just as water-tight (i.e. not very) an argument because of this.

"Humanity is the dumb because of all the shit!"
"I think you'll find IQ levels are rising."
Me: "And that proves... what, exactly?"

That's pretty much how it went.

I wasn't trying to suggest that "there there are more dimensions to intelligence than logic/reason/etc, [and I] think that speaks to a dumbing down of people via shitty entertainment".

I was suggesting that, perhaps, we're losing sight of what intelligence actually is, and - to be brutal - at a time in history where we really need to get a decent handle on it.

And it's all opinion, dude. I'm not for a second trying to put any of this shit across as "fact", prescribed by Dr Fact.

Far from it. I'm hella bored, here.
Just assume there's a massive invisible smiley at the end, there.

Edit:
"...but if you insist that things are getting objectively worse, that shitty music and bad youtube videos are causing some horrible decline in people's intelligence ("dumbing down the population by way of prolific and patently idiotic media") you need something cleaner cut and much more quantifiable."
This is my point, really. We DO need something else. But all we have is IQ.
And that's what someone immediately responded with to Skykid's claims.
And I tried to point that out (perhaps not as clearly as I'd hoped).

QED

[Acid King]

That's a few different conversations you're trying to smash together, there, Acid.

It was unclear to me if you were responding to me or Paper with that last comment. If not, consider the aforementioned response moot.

And it's all opinion, dude. I'm not for a second trying to put any of this shit across as "fact", prescribed by Dr Fact.
Far from it. I'm hella bored, here.

That's mostly just me jabbing Skykid's ribs about his insistence on objective facts.

Just assume there's a massive invisible smiley at the end, there.

Oh what, you can't even smile at me for real life?! Fucking internets ruining communication, I tells ya! Two can play at that game!

[Skykid]

Apologies, had a busy day. Back OT.

Someone at work thought it would be amusing to play Nicki Minaj's "Anaconda". I think nails on a blackboard for five minutes would have been a less torturous experience.

Funny you mention this, it's the exact example I was thinking of when mentioning the mainstream music industry is seeing just how low it can go. I was actually shocked to the point of laughter when that played in the car two days ago. Incredibly, millions of people are buying it.

Speaking of mainstream media, remember when Discovery Channel actually had nature shows and science on it? When History was actually about, y'know, history? Now it's all glorified pawn shops and ghost hunting bullshit.

Yes, it's dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. People watching this stuff now believe they're engaging in documentaries rather than more reality TV.

Anyway, now I have to go from appreciating the rational to dealing with the irrational. Here goes.

I'vr already addressed it in the previous post when I said the mainstream is smaller and it's becoming more fractured and less influentiall. You keep saying people are fed this and that but you offer no proof they're actually receiving this stuff in a meaningful and influential way and in larger numbers than before. And on top of that you won't even offer any meaningful explanation or evidence that it's dumbing people down.

Hold on a second, do you want me to go out and conduct a survey? It seems like my beliefs come with a burden of proof whereas you get to keep peddling crap about a "fractured mainstream being less influential" - can you show me the proof for that? How do you know the mainstream is less influential? That media marketing is less powerful now it has literally hundreds of different avenues for delivering it's messages and reaching people?

You seem pretty sure of yourself with all this statement making, yet you want me to quantifiably prove that the astronomical increase in commercial media proliferation, rise of reality TV, celebrity etc, isn't forming an intellectual void. Seems reasonable.

I've made my assertions based on information I see every day, based on exchanges made with people younger than myself, but AGAIN, to repeat something already stated earlier in the discussion:

Of course before anyone misinterprets my radical generalisation-for-effect comment that the sum total of all youths on the planet are braindead, just read between the lines...

It's impossible to talk in absolutes, only to make educated guesses based on what we already know.

So I won't be polling a survey, but I will stand by my impressions. Please don't ask me for a clinical spreadsheet again unless you're also able to prove that the 'dispersal' of media is making commercialism less potent.

The internet has only weakened the power of mainstream media because of the massive dispersion of information.

Have any proof?

Just because the internet is ubiquitous doesn't mean shit because people have more control over what they see and hear than ever before and just because they can reach more people doesn't mean they actually do.

Man, that is nonsense. You actually believe commercial media reaches fewer people than prior to the internet? I get the feeling you're using yourself as a barometer here. Pro-tip: Don't.

You can point to jontron's viewers and say it's a sign of the times, but the millions of people who don't watch that stuff or have eclectic tastes that don't fit your narrative are ignored.

But those aren't the people in question. Of course if I turn left I'll stumble on a blogger teaching girls how to get beautiful eyelashes in under minute with sixteen million views, and to the right someone crying over Britney Spears with a hundred million - and none of those guys are watching JonTron either.

You literally have no argument here beyond the internet is everywhere and your belief that the media is shoveling shit down on our throats

Er.. I know. That is the argument.

the latter of which is contradicted by the increasingly decentralized media marketplace, the incredible growth of niche markets and interests, and the declining viewership and interest in mainstream media.

Prove it for me yah, but let's close this one with a 'what if?'

What if the internet's incredible growth of niche interests is actually mostly also complete bullshit, as Roo outlined in his post, and all this is actually in addition to, rather than instead of, the consumption of braindead commercial media. What if?

[Stevas]

Actually, Acid, that wasn't really me responding to anyone, more my attempts at making myself clearerer.

Mission accomplished.
Erm.

And in real life you WOULD get a smiley.
I just refuse to use them on the internets.


Yes, I'm aware of the problems that can cause, thanks.

[Acid King]

Skykid, there is a proverbial mountain of information out there about media decentralization. Everything I've said is apparent to even a casual observer of the media. The whole of the media landscape is changing and it's at the expense of the old guard mainstream media in basically all its forms and it's all because of the shift to the internet and digital platforms, a change which is only going to be more pronounced as time goes on.

It was only a few years ago that the number of people who got their news from the internet surpassed the number of newspaper readers. Viewership of cable news networks is in decline, while network news and broadcast tv has been going down the tubes for years. As this is happening more people are getting their news from crowd sourced and social networking platforms, which destroys news organizations ability to curate news. Reddit is the number one news site on the internet and the second is Yahoo. More and more journalists are migrating to native digital publications from the old guard of mainstream newspapers. A poll from last year estimated that 68% of 14-30 year olds get their news on social media. Furthermore, Americans trust the mainstream media less and less as time goes on, so much so whole books are devoted to it.

The music industry is in decline as streaming grows and major labels share of the market is declining as the independent label market has grown. Shit like American Idol peaked years ago. The people who spend the most money on music don't go to one source but use a variety of sources to discover new music, and a third of those stream music. This is ignoring, of course, the proliferation of netlabels, name-your-price downloads and all the other musical outlets that don't get tracked by soundscan.

The film industry as a whole is in decline, but indies, profitable or not, released 22 times as many movies in 2013 as in 1983. Independent film has grown over the past decade while studio output has fallen. Video on demand is a growing market and will likely be a growing outlet for indies. Hell, Snowpiercer made almost as much money from 2 weeks of VOD as it did in five weeks in theaters.

This is all just scratching the surface. Pretty much all the major industries of the mainstream media are hurting from the shift to the internet and the fragmentation of the market. There are thousands upon thousands of new competitors at all levels and you're really arguing that not only is the mainstream thriving, but they are more powerful than ever? Not only that but they're turning people's brains to mush with shitty media? Really? Maybe things will turn around for them, but right now they're all weaker because of new competition. Stand by your impressions all you want, but for a guy who doesn't like when people muddy the water with personal taste, subjectivity, or opinion, you have surprisingly little interest in the reality of the current media landscape.

[Skykid]

Tomorrow we can do details (late for me now) but a quick read of your post and a glance at the sources seem to corroborate my stance, not unravel it. The internet has provided an obvious tributary for people to switch from newspapers, TV and cinema going - my involvement in these three things alone is basically nil.

But I still don't see how the move from commercialism in the real world to digital, iTunes, app operating system, mobile phone, tablet, laptop, android, virtual space guarantees to stem its reach.

Furthermore the shit that used to be produced by commercial media on a budget is being aped by independent bodies and further propagated - yes, making the independent entities you seem proud of just as toxic as the content produced by studios.

Just a moment a go I clicked BIL's link and landed on YouTube and to the right of the intended video were recommended alternate videos, all seemingly independently produced (although surely coupled with a huge amount of commercial advertising in respect of your clicks).

A smörgåsbord of absolute shit the like I couldn't even imagine. Retrospectively I wish I'd screen capped it to make this particular point all the more poignant.

Until tomorrow then. Goodnight.

[Acid King]

Keep moving those goalposts, Skykid.

[Ed Oscuro]

Anybody arguing that "things are getting worse" is signing on to some kind of campaign for change. That means they have to demonstrate why the change needs to happen - this is simply how arguments are properly conducted. Even the simple statement "things are worse" is contentious, always. History is full of people saying that the end is imminent, especially when it comes to social matters where people are easily influenced disproportionately by some voices. Just this morning, as I was taking my car in for the last time, some landlord was calling into say "I think you guys should have a different perspective, because here renting is expensive and getting harder to do" and the panel had to say "look, it's pretty hard to generalize things nationwide in a way that's going to always be true."

Obviously. How is this still confusing anyone?

Skykid's "things are getting worse, because I have a special hotline direct to all the facts, worldwide" argument is basically the same thing as the people who say "...but I haven't seen this global warming." Then knowing the truth is just a matter of the luck of who you listened to.

I think a lot of people need to learn out how to use filters. I mean, William Shatner knows how to use boolean operators and stuff to do just this!

Maybe Skykid's particular work puts him in contact with more fluff and flotsam than you can like...well, that's the entertainment industry. Maybe it's time to disengage from something that's obviously not going to be fulfilling for you anymore. If I feel like reading about the meaning of stuff, the last place I'm going to look is a movie, or a song, or a novel, or a poem.

I mean, it's a silly movie, or the stupid internet, just put the phone down and turn off the TV, and find something yourself instead of just complaining when you let society turn the channel to something you don't like. We still have enough freedom that you aren't forced to look at it.

[Zerst]

Social media has turned existence into a big MMORPG. People do shit not to experience life but rather to tick the checkbox next to "100+ photos from trip overseas uploaded". They listen to music because their facebook friends hit like and they don't want to fall behind on media consumption quotas. You need to post more and more because you're not keeping up with the Joneses anymore, you're competing against every single person you've ever said hi to combined. So of course when you run out of good music but still need 77 more songs to listen to that day to brag to your friends, you listen to shittier music, and the labels know it and play right into the mentality.

Then stockholm syndrome kicks in and that shitty music becomes an "acquired taste" to justify why it's on your list of "top 100 songs that I first listened to on 28 August 2014".

Fall behind by even a small period and suddenly people are talking about the new releases, and ONLY to people that also listened to them. The rest are treated as non-humans not to be given more than the obligatory quarter-second-glance in passing until they make up for lost time.

It's nothing less than a zombie apocalypse. You're either one of them or you're the enemy.

[Skykid]

Gooooood Moorning Shmupsforumdotorrrrrrg!

Today's agenda: cyclically correcting misaligned assumptions made on a skim read of previous points and a re-clarification of those points! Joy!

Anybody arguing that "things are getting worse" is signing on to some kind of campaign for change. That means they have to demonstrate why the change needs to happen - this is simply how arguments are properly conducted. Even the simple statement "things are worse" is contentious, always

Indeed. Not sure I ever blanketed "Things" are getting worse like agriculture (the sheep!) women (the heathens!) or farmers trying to eat into corporate profits under the banner of Fair Trade (bastards!)

So, because I really enjoy it, let's form a page four synopsis of what the original argument was:

Skykid's original argument in synopsis point format:

1: Jontron and pals are retarded, offering the lowest form of entertainment and therefore, must be reflected by their viewerbase to some degree.

That said:

2:

Of course before anyone misinterprets my radical generalisation-for-effect comment that the sum total of all youths on the planet are braindead, just read between the lines...

It's impossible to talk in absolutes, only to make educated guesses based on what we already know.

3: It's not purely the fact that you're getting older that makes today's media content appear to be getting poorer. This is an ingrained factor due to generation conflict (thanks cools) but there's also general observation and critical appraisal of a content's inherent value or quality. If you have the ability to identify inherent value or quality (sticking point).

Now:

Keep moving those goalposts, Skykid.

Did I?

Your assertion that because media is more fractured by the input of independent entities clawing airtime from commercial entities equals = JontTron. Point 1 on the synopsis.

So on your list of links, let's examine the relevancy to the original arguments:

"A few years ago the number of people who got their news from the internet surpassed the number of newspaper readers"

Irrelevant. Proves the internet is a dominant force.

"Viewership of cable networks is in decline, while network news and TV has been going down the tubes for years"

Irrelevant. Proves the internet is a dominant force. Facts only from US, but again, not surprising.

"As this is happening more people are getting their news from crowd sourced social network platforms"

Irrelevant: you couldn't provide a source to corroborate this lynchpin fact, which underpins the basis of your prior build up. Essentially you're saying that people are not trusting Fox News and are instead tuning into Reddit and YouTube to see what other idiotic human has to say in the way of hyper bole and misguided informative non-fact? Or do you think the majority of people actually visit reputable independent NON-COMMERCIALLY OWNED news sites rather than opinion pieces about celebrity A's choice of fingernail polish or how to make your man fall in love in ten easy steps? Not a chance. Respect your positive outlook though.

"Reddit is the number one news site on the internet and the second is Yahoo."

Relevant: Oh dear. You know Reddit is commercial (Advanced Publications) and the news information is about as free as a weekend in Guantanamo? No? Check out the current-as-we-speak mass censorship occurring about a gamer chick fucking some gamer guys: Quinnspiracy, critical news of the hour!
You know Yahoo is commercial? You know both of those platforms are stuffed with absolute shit and the internet is owned by Google?

Here you go: https://www.yahoo.com

Current top stories (this is not a joke):

Miley Cyrus wears the world's least wearable bathing suit on the cover of V Magazine

Joan Rivers in Coma

Jewish community forced out of Guatemalan village



All things considered, I think I'd stick with a copy of The Guardian, bias and all.

Onwards:

"More journalists are migrating from mainstream newspapers to digital publications"

Irrelevant: Print has been in decline for over a decade. Why is this news. Please review Skykid's original three point synopsis before continuing, as a refresher.

"A poll suggests 68% of 14-30 year olds get their news on social media"

Relevant. Dumbing down in effect. What kind of relevant news do you think appears on social media?

"Americans (not me!) trust the mainstream media less and less, so much so, whole books are devoted to it"

Good! Most of them go on the internet and rave some form of concentrated barking lunacy about 4D Lizards and convert other foolish individuals to their cause, thus perpetuating the 'dumbing down' by digital osmosis routine.

And as it happens, here's something else whole books are devoted to:



I could continue but it's exhausting. The endgame being, in relation to my original argument, who actually moved the goalposts?

So let me say, I'm with you on this.

I agree with you. I asked you to prove to me how media dispersal has occurred and infringed upon the airtime of commercial media, and you did. And I think you're right. Logicially, this has to have occurred, since the digital and virtual are so invasive it sits in our very pockets everywhere we go, and is open to such a large amount of user generated independent content, it's bound to eat into the cake previously baked by big business.

Does this fact of media dispersal affect my original argument?

No.

Is the internet still a sanctuary for the idiotic, a platform for stupidity that far outweighs the independent voices of value?

Yes.

Is JonTron still an unfunny waste of time/space?

Yes.

Is that brand of non-humour still popular with millions of people?

Yes.

Is age the only factor in assessing whether or not something is absolutely retarded?

No.

Is commercialism still all pervasive, is materialism at an all-time high, are people still getting their news from Yahoo?

Yes.

Is there still a strong argument that modern commercial media is getting poorer in quality and the independent followers weaned on that media will create independent works to reflect that lack of quality either now or in the near future?

Yes.


So nothing has really changed. I stand by my original argument (review three point synopsis for refresher.)

[Cagar]

Fucking great thread, 5/5 would read again. Epic trololoooloo xDDDD hahahaha!!!
Stay mad, grandpas!

[PAPER/ARTILLERY]

Today's comic from XKCD is somewhat relevant to this thread.

http://xkcd.com/1414/