Personalities in the Gaming Industry and Politics

[Mouseferatu]

You know, I think it's the bowl-cut that really makes that picture work, Eric.

 

[John Morrow]

Can someone give me an example of one of these "objective truths" that is not particularly political in nature? I just want to make sure I understand what we're talking about here. Are we talking something like "slavery is wrong" or something more akin to "the earth is 5 billion years old"?

How about DNA exists and works through certain chemical processes? See:

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/Ehrenreich.html

(This is also one of the reasons why I'm pessimistic about associating formal education with open mindedness, logic, and facts.)

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Nope: Evidence behind the link

Now, the armor might say something about me, however...

You fell for my clever trap, you dirty hippie.

 

[Renshai]

No, its that hat..and that collar.

 

[EricNoah]

How about DNA exists and works through certain chemical processes?

Cool, thanks.

 

[EricNoah]

No, its that hat..and that collar.

The sash!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Everyday I go to game stores where I like the staff (or the customers); I eat at restaurants where they are friendly; I take my car to the shop where the mechanics aren't greaseballs; I prefer to get my hair cut by either an attractive woman or an old (maybe Italian) barber; I prefer the service at Lowe's but the 'grimy-ness' of Home Depot; and so on. None of these decisions really has anything to do with the product that I'm ultimately buying.

While it is perfectly fair for you to make these descisions based on information that has no bearing on the quality of your purchase, I think it's important to note that this is, almost in definition, a shallow view.

Not that we all aren't shallow in many situations, just that this is an example of a lack of deapth in practice. It is the arbitrary equivalent of "I don't date blondes."

Not that it's invalid or anything, just that by living life by that code you're going to be excluding things that are very worthwhile simply because you would have to deal with a little bit of difficulty to find it.

That's not bad, per se, but it's very closeted. You'd rather be comfortable than discover true skill. You'd rather have everyone smile and nod, even if the true complexity of life lays behind those views. You'd rather have these people as tools, characters, figures empowering your own life, than have to pay attention to their human complexity.

Again, this isn't nessecarily a bad thing. It's easy to say that people generally don't say anything worth paying attention to, and that whatever reason you have to go to Home Depot supercedes whatever dim opinion of the government that the cashier has at the moment. People should do their jobs.

But at the same time, asking people to just do their jobs is denying the complex humanity that lays behind every person with a job. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe complex individuals generally don't have much wisdom to offer anyway, and ignoring them helps you achieve what you want to. But that's not dealing with them as individuals, that's dealing with them as tools for the advancement of your own goals, and desiring them to be nothing more....

Of course, this probably doesn't accurately reflect your own views, either, but that above statement can be seen as evidence for it, ya?

For me, I'm not about to pretend that shallow traits like professionalism and public face *don't* influence what I do. I'm not about to trust my car to a shop that employs arrested carjackers, even if the criminals are the best mechanics on the planet. However, I'm not about to get rid of a good store because their cashiers offer me an opinion.

 

[JohnSnow]

After slogging my way through all 6 pages of this amazingly civil (and thoroughly interesting) dialogue, I'll chip in my two cents.

I think what people are talking about is not "objective truth" but "objective fact." Science (and reasoned logical argument) is about facts, not truth. To borrow a quote from an Indiana Jones movie (Last Crusade for the curious), "if you're looking for truth, the philosophy class is down the hall."

Certainly it's possible to find arguments and statistics for all kinds of things. But real debate involves two (or more) people, operating from the same set of assumptions and trying to decide what to do. As I was growing up, my family had all kinds of discussions around our dinner table, frequently engaging in such minefield topics as politics, religion, philosophy, and ethics. But the one thing we NEVER did was argue facts. You can't have a reasoned discourse if you disagree on the facts.

Once the facts have been established, a real discussion can be had. Until then, it's noise. And what's going on today in media often is people screaming at each other over whose facts are right. That's not exactly difficult to solve. Facts can be looked up, studied and verified. If you have an opinion based on false facts (which aren't really facts at all), it's not worth a thing. Now you might reach the same conclusion even if you had real facts, but it being based on fact makes it, in one sense, a totally different opinion.

And in my opinion, slipshod attention to fact is what has degenerated political discourse in general. Obviously some people might disagree.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Can someone give me an example of one of these "objective truths" that is not particularly political in nature? I just want to make sure I understand what we're talking about here. Are we talking something like "slavery is wrong" or something more akin to "the earth is 5 billion years old"?

You have invited disaster. Let's go half way in the middle :

1 - It is objective truth that the "theory" of evolution explains the origin of species and best explains the creation of and rise of the human species to dominance on this planet.

From which flows

2- It is objective truth that we were not literally created in the Garden of Eden some 5,600 years ago and granted the earth through the divine providence of God.

One is a matter of measureable and predictable science that is wholly consistent with the fossil record while creationism is a tenet of faith that flies against all the evidence.

From this - a very great deal of uncomfortable evidence and objective truth flows.

I'd say - "let's discuss" - but I expect that is counterproductive.

 

[Elf Witch]

Also true. But it should ring a small bell for people who consider doing the same. I could be wrong but if a gamer goes political then I see him losing more customers then he will gain.

Who is going to go out of their way to buy from a game designer just because he has a similar political stance? Maybe a few but not enough in my opinion to offset the number of customers he will lose.

All of this comes with the caveat that I bet 90% of the people who have bought SKR's material have never been to his website and have no clue what his political leaning is and thus we are probably talking about a very small change in sales.

But a smart business person knows alienating and offending even a single customer is not a good thing. Word of mouth can be dangerous and we gamers just never seem to shut up.

I don't know about most people but I support people who have the courage to stand up for what they believe. Even if I disagree with them. I went out and bought Dixie Chicks CDs even though I don't really like their music when radio stations were trying to get people to ban them them for stating what they believed.

You see to me if people don't stand up for what they believe because they are afraid of the consequences then we are heading to a a very dangerous place. A place like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Think about it. Look at the author Rushee who has a death sentence on him because he wrote things that offended certain muslims.