Some believe that fun is something that is strict and stringent in its form. To these types of people, fun can only be the way in which they personally experience it. Of course, this is not the case, and fun can occur in many different ways for many different walks of life. I have personally had a lot of experience where I was not having fun, or I failed to enjoy something, when others were doing so, and I was fine with this, but in response to my lack of clear joy, I was told I hate fun. In addition, I’ve had moments where I criticized or mocked a certain type of action, behavior, or media, and in response, once again, I received the comment that I hate fun. Do I actually hate fun? No, I don’t think so. So, why would someone view me as an individual who doesn’t like to have fun, hates fun, or cannot have fun? More importantly, if this is not the case, how do I experience fun, then?
Generally, this has happened mostly within the realms of the online space. There have been many times when I was called out for clearly not enjoying something, and then I had to make sure to pretend I was enjoying it. In many cases, it is not acceptable for me to feel displeasure or apathy towards something that others around me are enjoying. For whatever reason, it is seen as unacceptable or wrong for me to be someone who doesn’t care for the same things as others. On top of this, on most days, I don’t really care for much at all. Could it be depression? Sure, you could use that label, but it doesn’t really matter. I am not deliberately trying to make it known that I dislike the thing, nor am I trying to seem like I’m in a state of displeasure. I think it’s okay and good for people to enjoy whatever it is they like, but they shouldn’t assume that everyone is the same. The point is, I have a general lack of interest in most things, and so when I don’t generally care about the same things that others do, there’s always confusion. I think that many fail to understand, and rightfully so, that I do not experience reality in the same way that they do. I experience it in a different way, a way that could be viewed as blander and tamer than their experience.
What might easily excite or stimulate one individual will not have the same exact reaction for another person. One might argue that there are some more general universals. For the most part, I think sex, and sexual things, whether content or action, will excite most individuals. Are there exceptions? Yes, of course, and this is not to say that a distinct type of sexual content will excite or allure all individuals in the same way. Is there variation in how excitable an individual can be? Once again, yes, there can and will be a scale of variation between the two points of not excited at all, to the most excited. Each individual has their own taste, and so they are attracted to some things over others. Are there generalities? Yes, there must be. If this was not the case, advertisers wouldn’t use sexual content to market to a certain group. For the most part, men are attracted to women, and women to men, and this basic idea can cause a focus on a particular group of individuals. What I mean is, this knowledge can enable anyone willing to do so, to create a form of media that allures a general or many general groups of people. There are general body types that people find attractive, like a healthy body, and so someone who is fit, conventionally attractive, and has proper lighting, will then be alluring to many people.
What this helps us acknowledge is that there are exceptions to rules, and even if, for the most part, you don’t like something or find it fun, or attractive, or alluring, there will be something within that realm that does excite some part of you. For the most part, I don’t really care for video games. However, I have put quite a bit of time into a handful of games, and specifically those games. I’ve tried other games, and they don’t really excite me; they don’t feel like much; it isn’t the same. As one might imagine, as time passes, you tend to tire yourself out from doing much of the same thing. This applies to the world of fun, too, and so I have found, for the most part, many of the games I used to enjoy in the past, I do not enjoy presently. They are not fun. The games have been worn out, and that’s that. Does this mean I hate fun? No, it means I have moved on, and I don’t care for the game anymore. That doesn’t mean the game is bad, or it shouldn’t be played, or that I hate video games. It simply means I’ve had my fun, and now I’m ready to move on.
In places I tend to roam on the online space, there is a tiresome hyper-fixation on humor. Everything must be humorous, all things are a joke, and there is never any degree of sincerity. Is this just the reality of the internet? No, obviously not, but it had overwhelmingly moved into that direction once it was realized that you could say or do whatever you want with minimal or zero repercussions. When I try to chat with someone, I have to find out, before anything else, if they are going to present something genuine to me. Sometimes it isn’t quite clear, but it generally becomes clearer as we continue to chat. The humor would mostly be one-sided in this case; the other individual can laugh about being false to me, and then move on to the next target, or patiently wait for a new one. Maybe they could be in a group or a pair, and they reinforce the falsities. In saying all this, what it comes down to is that the humor resides in a few individuals. An unfortunate reality of this type of behavior is that it spreads, and it puts people on their guard. It makes them question everyone they interact with, because they don’t have the immediate certainty, or trust, that the other person or group is going to be honest. Thankfully, in this little case anyway, most people, or trolls, are idiotic, and they make it quite obvious, but as we all know, there are always slippery snakes. On top of that, it doesn’t even begin to mention all the people who unintentionally present themselves in a less-than-genuine manner.
I have found some of these situations funny, but to a very limited degree, and the amount of data is unfortunately quite limited. What I enjoy most out of talking from people online is the freedom to say anything without limitation, while maintaining honesty, and being able to say what you may otherwise would be afraid to say. It isn’t so different from drinking alcohol, for example. It enables you to have less resistance in saying things, and so you can express yourself and your thoughts more loosely, although with a decreased ability to articulate those thoughts. You give up cerebral aptitude and gain less general resistance. I can find it fun to drink alcohol, I like that freedom, but these days, I would like to omit it entirely. If I’m on the internet, I don’t have a real use for it; I can express myself without any particular problem, and without fear. This is all to say that honest, deep conversation, is quite stimulating for me. Stimulation is not fun, no, but there is a tether between them. Fun must be stimulating, and if there is stimulation, I would argue, that fun can naturally arise.
Finally, we are brought to the idea that I take fun seriously. How does one assess this idea, exactly? It could be broken down to two simple ideas. For one, I require more stimulation than average, thus I require more in order to feel the same level of excitement. Additionally, if the context we are working within has mostly been my VRChat experience, then how have interactions on that platform led me to reinforce the idea that the platform generally fails to give me a certain level of stimulation? I would address the first idea with a few examples and showcase how it tends to be reinforced as an idea. As for the second case, I can make mention of a recent conversation that helped open my eyes as to how I maximally have fun when chatting, and especially why I have been deduced to someone who hates fun.
I cannot truly or completely prove that I require more stimulation than the average person, but I can attempt to persuade you of the idea. When speaking of stimulation, there is a general range of stimuli one could potentially experience, and obviously, this range is too great. When I say that I require more stimulation, I am talking of more data or information when socially interacting. As such, the frame of time a social interaction varies. Information can take many forms, it could be presented in a very direct and immediate way, or it could be indirect and difficult to navigate to the source of meaning. Whichever it might be, if there is more, that means I have more to consume, or integrate into myself.
Whenever I have the ability to choose who I might possibly talk with, even if simply chatting, that decision is always going to be biased in the direction of the individual who has more to say. If pushed into two extremes, one extreme would be surface level, as in, only able to answer questions like “How do you like the weather today?” while the other extreme could answer any question with their most honest depth. These being extremes, they aren’t the best to base your view of reality off of, but what can be acknowledged is that depth can be greater or lesser, and some genuinely have more to say than others. There are many subgroups of individuals that mesh well together, as they have similar levels of content to share. Not only that, they have similar abilities to share said content. Content quality and quantity are not to be confused for one another, either. Data of a higher quality has more data than data of a lower quality, and quantity is much in the case that, more is more, but more data in a sense becomes “less” when reaching a certain point.
That point is when the data no longer iterates or generates an increased number of pathways. When the quantity is simply a repetition or rehashing of previous statements without further elaboration, it is the same data, even if it looks different on the surface, thus, an increase in quantity is not necessarily more information or stimulation. An increase in quantity, when used here, is speaking of some level of iteration or increase, rather than much of the same shade and hue.
Most want a similar level of data incoming and outgoing. There are, slight pushes in these two main directions. There are extroverts, who want more data outgoing, and introverts, who prefer incoming data. Despite the presentation, anecdotes, and amount of information used, I am introverted. I prefer to listen and take in than to push out or share. I can then take in that information and utilize it however I might wish, and I can sit with that data for any desired duration of time. When in a state of equalization, there is expectation of that incoming and outgoing to be of generally equal amounts. Many social interactions aren’t equal, no, but if I like more data, and a certain quality of data, then being in a state where I can take in the most data would logically be my most natural state.
To further showcase the need for more stimulation, one must assess what occurs when someone, anyone, has constant or consistent exposure to something. They, after enough time, grow a tolerance to it; grow bored of it, and must find something else or increase the intensity of the object or thing. Indeed, an argument could be made that some find a level of satisfaction within specific parameters of stimulation, but if those parameters exceed the normal expectation, then one must acknowledge that such individuals exist. If you have ever felt boredom at a conversation or social interaction, then you have experienced the difference in parameters. This in particular, I would assert, is what I mean by needing more stimulation. I have taken in a lot of data, used a lot of data, and my parameters for those needs are misaligned with most people. This then, could be expressed in the idea that, wider-parameter stimulation is needed.
In the conversation I had recently, it was mostly initiated by general nonsense that one has in VRChat. Personally, I like to start conversation, and I’ll use information in someone’s bio, their groups, and anything they’ve made immediately available to me. I was going through my usual ritual, and things were going generally how I would expect. This, to a limit, is a good thing. It means I can explore a range of newness, which can excite me, and then could fit the label “fun” quite nicely. After a duration of time, I’m unsure how long, there was an individual that I had interacted with before in the same instance, and they came back around to the group. Initially, our interaction was what I anticipated it to be, which is fine. However, eventually they asked me a question, which then led to me spurring on about many different topics.
Not verbatim, but they asked three main questions. “Do you drink or smoke anything?” “If you do, how often do you use the substance?” “Why do or don’t you use the substance?” Yes, this is from my recollection of the events, not a literal replaying of the events, so I am putting my own bias on the questions and my memory is imperfect, thus we have to acknowledge the questions are not exactly like the one’s asked. The reason these questions were so interesting was because the reason behind the questionnaire, if you could call it that. Basically, this individual took me away from the group of people and spoke to me in an isolated area, and started sharing their experience of interacting with VRChat’s many players. They noted that especially often, in the current day, substances are used whenever they are on the platform.
This person found, and I mostly agree, that players on VRChat within public instances are often on some sort of substance. It is most commonly alcohol or weed, but there are deviations from those norms, but that’s not the primary point. Rather, it is about what happens when a person consumes either of these two main substances. If phrasing frankly, they are reduced, but if more moderate, one could say, “altered.” In this altered state, a person’s faculties are changed in such a way that they do not speak or present themselves in a way that would be the same if without the substance. Is this obvious? Sure, you’ve seen or experienced alcohol or weed yourself, you know this, but when in the midst of those substances, it’s unlikely you’re thinking about these ideas. Instead, you’re in the moment, and likely enjoying the moment, even if the experience, while sober, would not interest you.
All of this information is presented in order to give a foundation for the idea that I find it fun to connect with others. Actually, I can quite enjoy socializing, although I might not always be in the mood for it. The type of social connection I find most fulfilling, and what I will actively chase, is a: real, deep, and genuine relationship. It might be a little silly to seek this out on a platform like VRChat, which is a fine assessment, but the call to attention is to how a person changes in their ability to interact while under the influence of a substance. Not to say a person cannot be genuine while under these substances, but there is undeniably a change in behavior, and a change in how they operate. For example, I become far brasher and direct, and on many occasions, I have been downright rude or hurtful. In this, there are prerequisites that must be met, of course there are, but also, a range. The more I drink, until I hit a hard limit, I will become more extreme in these changes. Thus, the changes can be so great that they no longer represent the initial person, and even in the lower ranges of the spectrum, they are still not representative of how I, or any person, would normally would act.
If I value a genuine connection, and I want to have that connection be long-lasting and reoccurring, would someone under the influence of a substance be a good choice for any sort of relationship? No, they wouldn’t, as in this initial interaction, the relationship formed is with variables that do not represent how the person acts most of the time. If they consume the substance all the time, thus act that way all the time, that is then another assortment of problems, which will not currently be addressed, but the exception is so blatant that a lack of acknowledgement would seem to be a failure to assess the most basic contingencies.
When looking into my friends list, I notice there are some names I might not remember, or I only remember when thinking back to a time I was drinking, they were drinking, or we both were drinking. The group those names remain within never exit the realm of non-interaction. I never see them. The initial relationship created was with variables that we both acknowledge cannot be maintained at all times, and we might not even remember what the circumstances were under which we met aside from the alcohol. One could assert a variety of reasons as to why there a failure to rekindle, but I would suggest that in these relationships; connection, real genuine connection, was never founded. It was only surface-level, and even if we shared deeply emotional feelings or ideas, it was under the circumstance of the substance, of which if we met again, we would likely not be under, and so, would not make mention of the aforementioned feelings or ideas. Nor would we replicate the previous types of interaction.
When assessing fun, and assuming I take fun seriously, would this not fail to meet the criteria of seriousness within the context of conversation? The answer is: mostly yes. I can and have enjoyed my alcoholic experiences, for the most part anyway, and there has been value within them. Specifically, fun, within them. I would suggest that the type of fun I receive the most value from remains the same, with or without the substance, but instead, I require “more” while not experiencing the altered state. I still take fun seriously, but the range of seriousness wildly changes depending on whether or not the consumption of substances is present.
At this point, I believe that it’s obvious that I do enjoy having fun. Perhaps, even the methods used for having fun can be the same. The differing qualities in how I experience what one considers fun, in fact, is about the seriousness in which I strive for fun, how the fun comes about, and the depth or quality of the fun being had. Maybe I genuinely do take fun seriously, but in taking it seriously, a higher or more intense level of fun is experienced, and that has become my standard. I strive for that standard, I may not expect nor anticipate it, but it can nonetheless be desired. Sharing images or videos, memes for example, are unlikely to amuse me, and it is not because I hate fun, but because I truly do not find the thing being shared funny. If it was personalized, someone created the meme, and it was relevant to something in the moment or people we both were associated with, it would immediately have more value to me, and have much more opportunity to be amusing, and thus I would more likely consider it fun. Quality or depth of fun is generally dependent on the effort being put into the situation. Whether it be a conversation or a different type of interaction, generally, more effort leads to a higher quality result, and I am attracted to the higher end of the spectrum. Mostly for the reason of tolerance, as I work with certain predispositions, genetic or otherwise, along with experience that pushes me in the direction of desiring more out of an interaction. I like to have fun, but my fun is not always the same fun you have, nor of the same quality.