Personalities in the Gaming Industry and Politics

[S'mon]

The major political parties in the US are far broader coallitions than are typically seen elsewhere (because the political system strongly encourages two major parties). To UK-ize things ... suppose the LibDems and Labour were both in the same party, and so were the Greens. Then figure any even remotely respectable party of the Right as part of the Tories. And then given them about equal membership nationally, with solid regional strongholds.

Does that help?

Labour & Conservative in the UK are "broad church" parties. Labour includes people who are to the left of any US Democrats. US Republicans include people whose views might not be acceptable in the Conservatives, but I'm not sure about that. Overall I'd say Labour & Conservative were about as broad as Democrat & Republican, although most UK Conservatives would fit comfortably into the US Democratic party.

 

[S'mon]

But I do think that people in general, but particularly in the US, draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable views too tightly, to the extent that they regard it as unacceptable to simply express political views.

That's my impression. This seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon AFAIK.

 

[S'mon]

>>Originally Posted by billd91
The trouble is that it is not really an objective truth that evolution is the best explanation of the origin of species.<<

The theory of evolution through natural selection is the best available scientific explanation for the origin of species, though.

Is that considered a religious or political statement?

 

[Shemeska]

>>Originally Posted by billd91
The trouble is that it is not really an objective truth that evolution is the best explanation of the origin of species.<<

The theory of evolution through natural selection is the best available scientific explanation for the origin of species, though.

Is that considered a religious or political statement?

Nope, it's called an informed statement. Evolution via natural selection is a 'theory' about in the same way that gravity is. If you don't have scientific training and dispute the validity of evolution, I suggest you jump off a building and test out the 'theory' of gravity at the same time you test out evolution and spare the gene pool your contribution. But, that's just my opinion.

 

[S'mon]

Nope, it's called an informed statement. Evolution via natural selection is a 'theory' about in the same way that gravity is. If you don't have scientific training and dispute the validity of evolution, I suggest you jump off a building and test out the 'theory' of gravity at the same time you test out evolution and spare the gene pool your contribution. But, that's just my opinion.

As I understand it evolution & gravity are both observable facts, whereas the theories behind them (eg natural selection & Newtonian mechanics) are explanations of how and why they work. Theories are not directly observable, as I understand it a good theory is one that fits the facts, is open to experiments that attempt to disprove it (is disprovable), and overcomes those attempts - ie is not disproved. A 'bad' or unscientific theory is one that is inherently undisprovable, like "the universe only came into existence 5 minutes ago" or "the universe is just the dream of a giant ant in another universe".

 

[Belen]

That should make their opinions _more_ diverse not less, then?

Not at all. There is a reason that the term "hidebound" has been applied to professors and admins. IME, university professors and admin has settled on a set pattern of socio-political ideals. They allow nothing to challenge those ideals and go so far as to threaten, harass or defame people who do not share their beliefs.

For example, look how John Bean has been treated by his own colleagues at Southern Illinois: http://www.southernillinoisan.com/articles/2005/04/27/top/102503.txt

Another good place to see problems with universities is http://www.thefire.org/

 

[Belen]

But I do think that people in general, but particularly in the US, draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable views too tightly, to the extent that they regard it as unacceptable to simply express political views. Someone earlier in this thread said something about how people shouldn't discuss politics on their blogs because it's a touchy subject that's liable to cause offence. That just seemed a bit strong to me.

Well, I think people such as Michael Moore, Ted Rall, or Ann Coulter can be labeled as extremist. If I visit a site and see links to lunatic ravings from those people, then I am safe in saying that their views are unacceptable. Those people do not HAVE political views. They have disgusting rants meant to inflame an libel people. That is not politics. That is like getting on ENWorld and saying "d20 is the suxor" and never returning.

We call them trolls.

 

[Belen]

Nope, it's called an informed statement. Evolution via natural selection is a 'theory' about in the same way that gravity is. If you don't have scientific training and dispute the validity of evolution, I suggest you jump off a building and test out the 'theory' of gravity at the same time you test out evolution and spare the gene pool your contribution. But, that's just my opinion.

Ah..the darwin awards. I read them every time I get frustrating and need to see that some people will never reproduce.

 

[John Morrow]

No, you misunderstand me. I was talking about web site moderators enforcing the web site's own policies re eg no political speech. Not that I'm in favour of bans on political speech but I can see why it is considered necessary on ENW.

OK. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Umbran]

As I understand it evolution & gravity are both observable facts, whereas the theories behind them (eg natural selection & Newtonian mechanics) are explanations of how and why they work.

Um, Newtonian mechanics does not even attempt to explain how or why gravity works. It merely describes the results of gravity in a useful way. Newton tells you what's going to happen, but it does not make any claims about the underlying mechanic that makes it happen.

You don't get into suggestions of the how and why until you hit Einstein's General Relativity.