D&D Media Spotting and Mild Rant

[Kelleris]

And I'm judging you based upon this thread because that's all I have. You're judging this Bombay guy by his singular column and I am doing the same to you. In that we're no different.

Actually, I've said nothing about Dr. Bombay's personal character anywhere in this thread, though I've made some comments about how I found his column in response to others. Oh, and I've said he's ignorant of D&D, because that's the most charitable take on the published column. Others have been less charitable and accussed him of deliberate meanness toward an easy target.

I'm actually trying to make a distinction between laughing and this type of humor and ridiculing someone. If I laugh at someone whom I've never met, and whom I would likely never meet, and whom I wouldn't treat differently based on the recommendation of a caustic advice columnist if I did meet, I just don't think I'm ridiculing them. I'm not doing anything to them. Likewise, I wouldn't think the people who laughed at the Nut Incident at a party later were ridiculing me. At most, they would be ridiculing my tendency to have things hit me in the crotch, and I doubt even that would be on their mind. Really, they'd just be laughing at a story they found funny, and not ridiculing anything at all.

Do you at least concede that I have a reasonable point of view here, as to why I don't feel particularly guilty for my reaction? Even if you still think I'm ultimately to blame for some kind of moral lapse?

Umbran - Hey, I should've said something more specific earlier, but this reminds me. I hope you didn't take offense at my "Down boy" comment. I was being defensive and hadn't really thought the matter through yet. I'm sorry if I offended you.

 

[reveal]

Actually, I've said nothing about Dr. Bombay's personal character anywhere in this thread, though I've made some comments about how I found his column in response to others. Oh, and I've said he's ignorant of D&D, because that's the most charitable take on the published column.

But you are judging him as being "ignorant" by his one column. I am judging you by your one posting. Same difference.

Do you at least concede that I have a reasonable point of view here, as to why I don't feel particularly guilty for my reaction? Even if you still think I'm ultimately to blame for some kind of moral lapse?

I do think you have a reasonable point of view. If you are willing to laugh at yourself, as you laugh at others, than I'm okay with that. What I've been saying is if you laugh at others and are not able to laugh at youself, that's where it becomes an issue for me.

In this case you laughed at his column up until the point it affected you. That's when it became offensive. I do not agree with that point of view. If you laugh at someone else being ridiculed, then you have to be able to laugh at yourself being ridiculed, which you are willing to do. But, in this case, both parties were being ridiculed at the same time, the author of the original letter and yourself. You laughed at the authors ridicule but not at your own. That's hypocritcal to me.

 

[Kelleris]

But you are judging him as being "ignorant" by his one column. I am judging you by your one posting. Same difference.

Yes, but you have to remember something here that makes the situation different: ignorance is not the same as moral failure. If someone doesn't know something, I'm pretty justified in thinking that, well, they don't know it. If they have a moral lapse in a trivial matter, I'm not justified in thinking that they're morally suspect in a general sense. Also, I think I'm justified in making a judgment based on the evidence. I don't have more evidence (wish that I did), so I made the most generous judgment I could, that he honestly doesn't know what he's talking about. Others have been less generous, imputting outright maliciousness or simple cynicism to Dr. Bombay. Both of these options are supported to some degree by the evidence, and I picked the most generous since I was effectively called upon to make a judgment.

I'm asking you to extend me the same courtesy and make the most generous judgment supported by the evidence. In this case, it's that I'm suffering a moral lapse relating to a trivial matter but am probably quite a nice, empathic guy most of the time, and in particular in relation to less trivial occassions. Though, given all these posts, I'll be okay with it if you decide that I can be pig-headed stubborn sometimes, because that's sure a heck true.

I do think you have a reasonable point of view. If you are willing to laugh at yourself, as you laugh at others, than I'm okay with that. What I've been saying is if you laugh at others and are not able to laugh at youself, that's where it becomes an issue for me.

Heh. If you knew me, you wouldn't doubt that I'm able to laugh at myself on occassion. My Wisdom, as it were, is much too low to do otherwise.

In this case you laughed at his column up until the point it affected you. That's when it became offensive. I do not agree with that point of view. If you laugh at someone else being ridiculed, then you have to be able to laugh at yourself being ridiculed, which you are willing to do. But, in this case, both parties were being ridiculed at the same time, the author of the original letter and yourself. You laughed at the authors ridicule but not at your own. That's hypocritcal to me.

See, this is another one of those times when you should be practicing some epistemic generosity. I've never said that I laughed at the abuse of the EQ guy (and in fact I didn't), just that I found his column to be funny on other occassions.

In fact, if you were a little less personally affected by this subject (it obviously affects you deeply, or you have a lot of free time, or you're mad at me now) you might've taken the following to mean that I was mildly upset at the EQ stuff as well (which I was), just not angry yet:

And here's where I start to get cheesed off -

It's ambiguous, I admit, but you're reading something a little extra into what I said if you take that to mean that I was laughing hysterically at the EQ guy. In fact, I wasn't "cheesed off" or much of anything else because I didn't have an emotional reaction to that part. I thought it was wrong, and more than usually distasteful, but it hadn't gotten to me emotionally. The D&D stuff did, so I got upset and decided to post this thread to vent a little.

Were I an EQ (but not a D&D) player, I would probably have roughly the opposite reaction, because my sphere of knowledge and personal interests would be different. In either case, I still wouldn't expect people who weren't D&D players to get upset at the D&D stuff. I would be upset if they missed the (really obvious) cues that they shouldn't take this guy all that seriously, and upset at the stereotype itself as I would any other that impacted me, but I don't get upset over things I have no desire to seek change in. It's a waste of energy to send letters that will be ignored on behalf of people who will never see it, and that's how I see the situation. Likewise, it's a waste of energy to get distraught over something I might otherwise find funny unless doing so prevents some moral or substantive harm to myself (by lowering my standards or something) or another person (by adding to their pain).

Now, I am willing to admit that getting angry was the wrong reaction, for these very reason, but I don't think it was a hypocritical action. I should have shrugged it off and thought a little more before posting anything. I did "betray my own principles" in a sense, but it was because I got annoyed at something I knew shouldn't bother me, not because (as you seem to think) I think it's okay to ridicule people as long as they aren't myself.

Hmm, so yes, I agree I was being a hypocrite. But I wasn't violating the principle you take me to be violating, and it was an intellectual lapse (my emotions got the better of me) and not a moral one.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I already dislike this columnist, he seems like a real jerk and fraggin' ass (one reason why I don't listen to talk radio, this guy would fit right in by the sound of him).
While he is ignorant, generalizes and is rude he does make a couple good points:
1) D&D is addictive and like anything else if it becomes an obsession it can interfere life (so can football, school, drugs and TV may I point out)
2) MMORPGs are highly addictive, they're practically VR (if they aren't considered so already) and if you allow them they can over run your life (see #1).

D&D isn't a card game BTW and I think, just like with most other activities, neither MMORPGs nor D&D will be a problem for most people.
As long as I get my weekly gaming fix I'm happy.

 

[Kelleris]

I already dislike this columnist, he seems like a real jerk and fraggin' ass (one reason why I don't listen to talk radio, this guy would fit right in by the sound of him).

I suppose he might, though the difference is that I'm fairly sure those talk radio people actually believe everything they say, and Bombay may just be being an ass as his schtick.

Incidentally, I do occassionally listen to talk radio, though I don't do it expecting to learn anything more than the basic outlines of the news (in the same way, from this column, I would learn that EQ addiction can be a serious problem and D&D is an imaginative fantasy game, if I hadn't known that already). It's just interesting to me to listen to those shows, laugh occassionally, and play "spot the logical fallacy".

Hrm. Maybe my sense of humor is just off-kilter and that's the root of the problem. I think someone suggested that on the first page, actually.

 

[reveal]

Hmm, so yes, I agree I was being a hypocrite. But I wasn't violating the principle you take me to be violating, and it was an intellectual lapse (my emotions got the better of me) and not a moral one.

I ain't mad atcha. I'm just enjoying the quasi-tete-a-tete.

I'm sure I did take your post out of context of your actual feelings at the time of reading it. As long as you're not offended by his posts solely because of what was said about something you enjoy while at the same time laughing at others, than I'm cool with that.

 

[Kelleris]

I ain't mad atcha. I'm just enjoying the quasi-tete-a-tete.

I'm sure I did take your post out of context of your actual feelings at the time of reading it. As long as you're not offended by his posts solely because of what was said about something you enjoy while at the same time laughing at others, than I'm cool with that.

Ah, it seems a chose the wrong point to take issue with, then. Though I do admit to occassionally finding the column funny when I come across it. And he does usually tear into the guys who send him computer questions (which are often so easy a trained monkey could correct them, as someone earlier noted), and I sometimes think that's funny. (I mentioned in a reply to Umbran why that doesn't strike me as being a cruel sort of ridicule.) In this case, I was annoyed at the caricature of EQ players and angry at the caricature of D&D players, and so my post's focus was on that. If someone had posted a thread about the EQ side of this little tempest in a teacup, I, well, I probably would've lurked because that's what I usually do around here. But I would have at least though that that was quite unfair.

Well, at least this thread has helped me work through my opinions on hypocrisy and the acting thereof. And I'm definitely not in much danger of having my heart hardened toward EQ sufferers as long as reveal and Umbran are going to get on my case.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

This is what you (and society in general) gets for enjoying and supporting sarcastic tones, and in finding enjoyment in others being insulted.

Sometimes, the sarcasm gets turned against something you like. It isn't so funny now, is it? How do you think the author's previous targets felt? How often do you figure this guy has used falsehoods to make other people look bad?

It's just as funny now as it ever was - freaking hilarious.

More seriously, cynical and nasty humour makes the world go 'round. You can't tell me the world would be a better place if Bill Hicks had never strolled the stage.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Edited for accuracy:

Here's an example: Let's say you watch America's Funniest Home Videos and laugh maniacally when people get hit in the crotch. . . . That's hypocritical.

No, that's stupid, because it's a stupid freakin' show.