Personalities in the Gaming Industry and Politics

[billd91]

Why?

I have a whole list of actors/actresses who I wont see their movies because I find them to be rather repugnent political weenies whose views I disagree with.

I wont give them my money because to me that financially supports their stance. That and because it offends the hell out of me that there are so many sheep in this world who actually care what Tom Hanks might think about this president or that political situation. Where do celebrities get this deep profound wisdom that so many sheep in society must know and follow.

The consumer certainly has the right to boycott for any reason whatsoever, with the realization that the boycott may not actually have a significant effect or might actually hurt other people as much as or more than the primary target. That's the nature of boycotts and complex business relationships.

But in defense of celebrities who spout off, as citizens of a free society, they have as much (or as little) right to spout off as anybody else. And people should care about their opinions in proportion to how well we judge them intelligent and informed individuals and not simply because of their level of fame. As for me, if I think Tom Hanks is smart and informed on the topic, sure I'll give him a listen. And if Charleton Heston is smart and informed on a topic, I'll give him a listen.
But personally, if I disagree with either of them and think they're sleazeballs for the political/moral/ethical beliefs (and the three are VERY hard to pull apart) but still think they do a good job at their main profession, I'll still go see their movies. You can still make a pretty good movie and still not be much of a person, as far as I'm concerned (to steal a paraphrase from Kirk Douglas).

 

[EricNoah]

"Fighting Ignorance since 1973 (It's taking longer than we thought)."

Isn't the very name, though, a sign that you (or whoever runs the site) believes that the "other side" is "that way" out of "sheer ignorance"?

My new thought...

Typically we assume that someone thinks the way they do because they have witnessed the world, compiled all of the facts at their disposal, and then formed an opinion or taken a position; and that they constantly re-evaluate their position/opinion as new facts are uncovered.

I posit that people, in actual practice, do the opposite -- they form their opinions early, then seek out facts or other evidence to reinforce their world view; and they cling very hard to their position/opinion despite opposing evidence. In effect: no one wants their opinions changed, which makes a lot of political debate kind of pointless.

You know, it links right to a book I've been re-reading recently -- Games People Play. People, in their human interactions, seek two basic things: they want "strokes" (physical or emotional, and positive or negative doesn't matter), and they attempt to create or participate in situations that reinforce their world view. Hmmm ... maybe I can re-read that section and bring more to this later...

 

[nothing to see here]

While I tend to agree with that (as I mentioned in another thread here recently, the original meaning of the phrase "politically correct" has to do with judging ideas based on their political implications rather than their factual or logical validity and I think that's very dangerous no matter who does it), I also think this idea leads to part of what is causing the inability for people who disagree to have a civil discussion -- the idea that to understand is to agree. That's simply not true in my experience.

Many American strying to do business in Japan get themselves in a heap of trouble when they assume that hearing "wakarimasu" (I understand) means "I agree". It doesn't. It means that they understand all of the details of the American's argument and don't want to hear any more about it. They may not agree with the argument at all. They simply understand it.

What makes this confusion a real problem is that when people of various political leanings make a comprehensive argument in support of their position to people who disagree with them, they assume that if the other side hears and understands what they are saying, that the other side will agree with their position. When the other side often doesn't agree, they reject the possibility that the other side understands their position but simply disagrees and jump to the conclusion that the other side is unreasonable, stupid, inattentive, or simply evil. They can't imagine why an intelligent person of good character could possibly look at the same facts and arguments and come to a different conclusion. And once you stop believing that the people who disagree with you might also be of good character, all civility tends to break down.

(FYI, this is not the only issue where two concepts have been merged that shouldn't be, in my opinion.)

A fine post. If I may add an additional point. The days in which the point of a political debate was to convert the 'other guy' (or at least a neutral observer) have long since past. Meaningful political debates these days are aimed at framing an issue in such a way as it maximizes the base of support you already have.

Whie this approach is far better served by aggressive strident language...it only works to an extent. From a purely 'strategic' standpoing any political forum that enrages your opponents more than it motivates your supporters is an absolute waste of time (why motivate the other guy?). Blog opperators be warned.

If you can 'wedge' your opponent from his or her supporters (by framing the issues in such a way that they have difficult keeping peace in their flock), all the better...but either way, rationed reasoned comparisons of rhetoric as a meaninful strategic device, are a thing of the past.

Two sides each preaching to their choir is like two neighbours that keep turning up the volume on each other's stereos to drown the other guy out. Whether you're conscious of it or not, that's the state of political discourse in most western societies these days -- particularly within new media (talk radio, documentaries, and internet message boards).

Hence the heated rhetoric...hence the hurt feelings. Hence the flamewars, the thread closures, and the requirements to leave your politics a the door.

 

[EricNoah]

Two sides each preaching to their choir is like two neighbours that keep turning up the volume on each other's stereos to drown the other guy out. Whether you're conscious of it or not, that's the state of political discourse in most western societies these days -- particularly within new media (talk radio, documentaries, and internet message boards).

Hence the heated rhetoric...hence the hurt feelings. Hence the flamewars, the thread closures, and the requirements to leave your politics a the door.

Nicely stated. That's it (the no-politics-at-EN-World rule), in a nutshell.

 

[Henry]

Eric makes a good point - by the time we are adults, we RARELY make large swings in our political or religious beliefs, and when we do it's usually because of a dramatic emotional event (usually tragedy). In childhood, our basic values are usually set in place, usually by role models, and whatever we learn from after that point is colored by the basic tenets that we "know" to be true. Even when we break from the role models (usually in teenage years) we eventually come back to these role models, or our images of them from childhood at the least. It's where you often get the phrase

"MY God, I've become my father/mother/grandmother."

 

[Renshai]

It is a testament to the users at this site and their maturity, that this very thread hasn't turned into a flame war.

If political discussions took place in this manner all over the world.... we'd be in a better place

Bravo.

 

[John Morrow]

I think everyone should be free to say what they think on their own website....

While I think many people here believe that to one degree or another, I do think there are practical limits to how extreme those opinions can be before people do hold the artist responsible for their views. If a game designer were seriously denying the Holocaust, praising Stalin's methods, advocating the legalization of pedophilia, advocating taking the right to vote away from women, praising the practice of slavery, etc. I think that many people would be saying very different things here.

There is a privately written role-playing game that can be found on the web written by white supremacists that deals with fighting a racial "holy war" against minorities. I have no doubt that no matter how good that author's "art" is, they'd have a hard time getting a job in the industry and a lot of people would boycott their work if they did. And the reason would be wholly because of their offensive personal opinions.

And, personally, I have no problem with that.

 

[tonym]

I don't think politics is such a horrible topic that Erik, or anybody, should feel obligated to warn people about the presence of politics on their blog whenever they mention their blog. Politics is part of the life in the same way poverty and sickness are parts of life. They are unpleasant subjects to some extent, but they are also important subjects.

Whenever a person publicly endorses constraining political thought--like has happened in this thread--the person is actually (and possibly unintentionally) delivering a subtle, yet powerful political message.

The person is, in effect, saying, "The people should be silent."

Tony M

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

First quick apologies to Whisperfoot if I got his quote wrong. I couldn’t find the exact quote below, I found it being quoted by someone else, but I thought when it came to the nuts and bolts of his original post so I went with it.

I'm simply asking whether you think that writers in this industry should be talking politics.

Sure, it’s there right, like anyone else’s right, and if they want to exercise it? Well so be it, but as some have already said others can exercise their own rights and not buy their stuff.

 

[Odhanan]

My worry is that when game designers talk about their work and represent them and their work on the same place as they vent on politics, it makes me worry about speaking out on my own political beliefs if I would ever want a chance to get something published in that industry if I held opinions counter to those folks.

Sometimes I'm scarred about this. And then, I remember I have very good friends and a life partner who happen to be of an opposite political opinion on fairly regular basis. Being coworkers, friends, even lovers doesn't imply that people have to agree all the time on everything. This is an unrealistic assumption that is bound to bring disappointment sooner or later.

I remember Mike Moorcock told me once "you can recognize mature people when they agree to disagree". How true.