Personalities in the Gaming Industry and Politics

[Umbran]

Wrong. Private individuals should do what they believe is appropriate in such a situation.

Yes, but private individuals also should carefully consider what is appropriate before acting. Frequently, folks miss this step, or perform it haphazardly. While you are free to speak your mind, it does nobody any good if you speak your mind poorly.

 

[John Morrow]

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

The problem is that college faculty has input on the college faculty that's hired and, in practice, they self-select for more people who think just like they do. If professors were interviewed and hired by people who had an interest in giving the faculty a diversity of opinions, it might be a good thing but that's not how it works.

 

[Umbran]

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.

In this, I'm not at all convinced that they're being any different from anyone else. IME, very few people actually accept challenges to their basic ideas and ideals. This isn't so much a quality of university professors as it is of humanity.

Before you answer, think for a second - at the moment, you do seem to be busy defaming university professors as a class, for not holding to your ideals.

Which, of course, puts me in a wonderful position, rhetorically speaking

 

[Belen]

In this, I'm not at all convinced that they're being any different from anyone else. IME, very few people actually accept challenges to their basic ideas and ideals. This isn't so much a quality of university professors as it is of humanity.

Before you answer, think for a second - at the moment, you do seem to be busy defaming university professors as a class, for not holding to your ideals.

No, because I do not consider calling someone "hidebound" defamation. I agree with your general premise though about human nature. However, I do not require professors to hold to my ideals. Whatever path they choose to follow should be the one with which they are comfortable. My problem is that many professors and institutions are choosing to eliminate those ideas with which they do not agree in order to create their own brave new world.

 

[diaglo]

On the other hand, shouldn't artists feel free to express their political views in the appropriate venues without doing so completely anonymously? If Erik has a blog where he discusses games, politics, and anything else that happens to be on his mind, wouldn't censoring that be untrue to himself?

I'm not really posting this because I have an agenda. I'm curious what people really think about this.

yes, i think people should have a place to post their opinions like blogs. i think when they go to other sites and link to their blogs they should put a warning in there though to give people a head's up. courtesy to the site you've placed the link and all.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

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.

Well I would draw a distinction between strong ranting and extremism.

Speaking very carefully to avoid a discussion of actual politics...

If a person rants and raves about how evil politician A is and how the things they do are absolutely sickening - I'd call that person a ranter.

But if a person says that certain groups of people (people who practice a particular religion) should be forced (i.e. through violence) to recant their beliefs with those who refuse being executed - now that person I'd call an extremist.

Of the three people on your list, one I'd put in the former category, one I'd put in the latter category, and the other one I confess I've never heard of.

 

[John Morrow]

In this, I'm not at all convinced that they're being any different from anyone else. IME, very few people actually accept challenges to their basic ideas and ideals. This isn't so much a quality of university professors as it is of humanity.

What makes it different is the uniformity of the basic ideas and ideals. What happens when you get a uniformity of ideas and ideals that isn't challenged is radicalization because the radicals stop being challenged and start feeling free to say or do whatever they want without fear of being challenged. And in the university setting, this also means that they feel free to politicize their classes. I've heard more than one story while I was an undergrad of professors telling students on the first day of class that their class was going to be political and if the students didn't like that, they should drop the class. And in some cases, those classes dealt with issues that weren't even political in nature and the politics they introduced had nothing to do with the subject of the class.

Before you answer, think for a second - at the moment, you do seem to be busy defaming university professors as a class, for not holding to your ideals.

That's a straw man. The complaints being aimed at university professers here are because of (A) the lack of diversity in their politics, (B) their use of their classes as political soapboxes, and (C) their closed-mindedness despite their education (which was why this topic was introduced into this thread). I'm sure there are some people who would like to see university professors become as biased in the other direction but I don't see any evidence that anyone in this thread is arguing for that.

Which, of course, puts me in a wonderful position, rhetorically speaking

Being a straw man, it's mighty easy to knock down, isn't it?

Complaining about a bias in one direction does not automatically mean that a person desires a bias in the other direction. And if you want to look for a source of political polarization, you might want to consider the effect that excluded middle arguments (e.g., "If you oppose the left-wing bias of university professors, you must support replacing it with a right-wing bias.") have on political discourse. It becomes impossible to advocate a moderate position or criticize a radical position if you exclude the possibility of any middle position between the extremes. Right?

 

[nothing to see here]

Of the three people on your list, one I'd put in the former category, one I'd put in the latter category, and the other one I confess I've never heard of.

The funny thing is the vast majority of partisans (of all stripes) could say the exact same thing about those particular three names. However who get's put in what category would greatly differ indeed.

 

[nothing to see here]

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.

Great point. Trolls are more than just a product of Internet message boards or blogs. They are also a product of talk radio, pseudo-documentaries, 24 hour news cable TV, and other 'new media'.

By democratizing access to mass audiences, new media has done an end-run around the brokerage ('elitist') environments of traditional mass communications. Anybody can start a blog or post to a message board...with putting together a fakeumentary, getting your face on news TV, or or voice on talk radio, more difficult but still attainable goals. Compare that to what fringe personalities had to do 25 years ago, when media was top heavy, and therefore, as an extension, somewhat better moderated.

Democratizing access to mass media is a good thing, don't get me wrong. It is however NOT a universally good thing. It's great that I COULD start a blog (I'll be damned if I can figure out why I'd ever want to), however at the same time, whether by accident or design, this democratization has ripped away many of the filters that prevented 'trolls' from spreading their intentionally inflamatory politics.

When you break access to the system down to the lowet common denominator, do not be surprised if the content in the system breaks down with it.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

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.

And what an ill-informed opinion it is. The life sciences have an inferior evidentiary threshold and are not even remotely on the same epistemological footing as the physical and mathematical sciences. Indeed, examining skulls and physiology for clues used to be called phrenology and haruspicy, respectively, in another time and place.