Personalities in the Gaming Industry and Politics

[Mark]

But so long as you're not an out and out whack job, ...

So far, so good...

 

[JacktheRabbit]

No one has any right to try and make a person sublimate their own views. It's one thing to say that a certain forum (like this one) has a "no discussion of politics" rule, but its quite another thing to ask another person to sublimate their views under threat of financial reprisal - I won't buy from you because I disagree with your views.

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.

Gamers are no different. If politics is important enough to SKR to post it in his business site then his poltical stance is important enough for me NOT to financially support it.

I am sure politically extreme celebrities donate money to their pet causes. If they support causes I oppose or disagree with then it behoves me not to give them more money to support those causes.

The last thing I want to do is buy a SKR product and then find out later he donated $1000 to the election of someone I think is a whack job. ;-)

 

[Pramas]

Personally, I have long thought that 99% of the writers in our hobby lean a certain way. Maybe I have been colored by people such as Sean Reynolds and Anthony Valterra, but I have come to half-expect certain political leanings. No big deal in many cases. I actually go to SKR's site from time to time just to see what is happening on his politcal boards. The difference being that Sean clearly labels his site and you know what to expect.

By and large, the game industry is actually pretty conservative. When I first started freelancing, I found that it was best to avoid two topics with my peers when attending events like GenCon: politics and music. Politics because I was invariably more lefty than other industry folk and music because so many of them were into music I found, shall we say, agonizing. And sure, I made friends who I could speak plainly to in off hours, but when I was acting in a professional capacity I found it better to keep politics out of it. And that's the difference between the Green Ronin website and my blog. You'll never see my use the GR site to promote my political views. My blog, however, is personal and I'm going to say what's on my mind there.

Chris Pramas

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Vigwyn the Unruly
The country is very polarized right now, and nerves are raw.

Without putting too fine a point on it - I assume by "The Country" you mean "The USA"... it would be helpful to recognize that there are a lot more people out there writing - and reading said Blogs than just Americans.

This is why they hate us.

RPG-Related Corollary: It's also why a lot of gamers hate WOTC.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

No one has any right to try and make a person sublimate their own views. It's one thing to say that a certain forum (like this one) has a "no discussion of politics" rule, but its quite another thing to ask another person to sublimate their views under threat of financial reprisal - I won't buy from you because I disagree with your views.

That's ridiculous. It's absolutely appropriate for a consumer to base his purchasing decisions on whatever whim strikes him at the moment.

It's no different than not buying from Wal-Mart for reasons that have nothing to do with the product and everything to do with their corporate image.

 

[Henry]

By and large, the game industry is actually pretty conservative.

As with BelenUmeria, this is actually a surprise to me, given my perceptions. But I'd love to find another venue to discuss it.

 

[John Morrow]

I read a great quote just recently about how political debate should work: "True debate is about more than winning; it is collaborative truth-seeking." In order to come to the table with "sound habits of thought" we need to do certain things: respect facts, research, and learning; think critically about sources of information including bias, credentials, funding sources and affiliations; examine our own unquestioned assumptions and motivations; practice open-minded listening; and resist "argument by slogan and sound-bite."

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.)

 

[EricNoah]

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.)

I agree 100% with what you're saying; I am, however, not seeing what "two concepts" I have merged or confused.

 

[Pielorinho]

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.

An excellent point. There's a book called The Crooked Timber of Humanity that lays out a similar argument in meticulous, beautiful detail: it's one that I recommend without reservation, and it's one that profoundly changed the tenor, if not the direction, of my own political views.

While I don't debate politics here, I love to debate them elsewhere, usually on a board that modestly describes itself as "Fighting Ignorance since 1973 (It's taking longer than we thought)." My favorite types of political debates are ones in which people scrupulously avoid insults, work to understand what one another says, concede valid points, and marshall facts and resources to support their viewpoint. Given such parameters, I've actually witnessed people changing minds as a result of a debate, a site rare and miraculous as an ivory-billed woodpecker.

Daniel

 

[drothgery]

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.

Bah. There are way too many good entertainers (whether actors or writers or artists or musicians) whose politics I rather strongly disagree with to just give up on their work over it.